Posted by pkoopman on 10/1/2016 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by poncho0091 on 10/1/2016 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 10/1/2016 5:10:00 PM (view original):
I focused on the second of the definitions you offered because you did. If you want to test it by the first, it still falls short. There is a method in 3.0, and the probabilities are influenced by the conscious decisions of multiple users.
If I'm splitting hairs, it's because I think it matters. A lot of the dissatisfaction is based on mistaken assumptions, including people assuming more chance than is actually involved. There is some chance (implying probabilities), yes. But chance and random aren't synonyms. For people who enjoyed 2.0 and are struggling with 3.0, adjusting is largely going to be a matter of realizing and finding those places where their choices impact the probabilities, and embracing those decision points as the new strategic landscape. When people improperly toss around terms like "coin flip" and "random", they obscure this process of adjustment for themselves and others.
In your description, the method, the portion the users control, only gets you to the door. Ultimately, the random factor is what opens the door for you (signing the recruit). That final dice roll really is not influenced at all by what the users do, which again makes it random. Getting to that dice roll, is the user influence, but it's all random after that. That's a pretty big deal.
People are not improperly tossing the random/coin flip term around. You and others are improperly interpreting what is being said.
That's simply not true. It's not how statistics and probability work. The only thing "random" is what the random number generator spits out. But the parameters of what that number will mean are determined by choices users make. Your choices and actions have determined how many lottery balls out of 100 you will have. That's not random, so the result can't be called random. It's not outside your influence.
But it is true. The "only random" is in fact still random. How do you not understand this? You keep arguing a point no one is making. We understand that we have control up to a point, but what is in place is just stupid. In reality, I could potentially outrecruit all of my competitors using pure strategy and budget my money, but because of the random dice roll, I could also still lose every one of those recruits, effectively screwing my team for who knows how long.
I love how you guys talk about taking basic math out of the game ($10 effort is greater than $5), because it's not fair, but now you want to add statistics to recruiting (If Coach X puts in $10 and Coach Y puts in $5, Coach X has a 90% chance to sign, but if Coach Y puts in $7, he now has a 40% chance to sign). Do you not see how confusing this will be to many, especially to new players. If that was my first introduction to the game, my first thought would have been "this is bullshit" and I would have left. Statistics are already in play in game management, and that is understandable, but it should not be a part of the user effort in recruiting. It's already involved in determining recruits, potentials, and preferences. Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it.
How about we all just throw one big blind bid on all the players we want, and let the RNG decide the rest, so I can stop wasting my time believing I've won a player because I've outrecruited my opponent.
This is effectively what we are doing.