Posted by dcbove on 5/8/2015 1:37:00 PM (view original):
I love that WIS is trying. But, I still think the biggest issue with budgeting logic is that for ADV the only reasonable strategies are going to be either ADV of 0 or ADV very close to 20. There needs to be medium value of some kind gained by having an ADV of 10. Crappy scouting with an ADV of 10 will be a waste of money and force people to one extreme or the other.

People use 10m for HS/Coll/IFA all the time.    Right now, that affects the projections of those prospects.   How would these updates change that?

Posted by hineiii on 5/8/2015 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Not sure if this has been mentioned here in the 20 odd pages, but any thoughts on how this will affect the review of trades? I typically looked at the progression of a player if a prospect vs currents of a vet... Could this lead to the dreded lopsided trade becoming more common? Would love to hear others thoughts...

Are vetoes and lopsided deals still a problem in many worlds?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2015 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alleyviper on 5/8/2015 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Regardless how of how hypocritical anyone in this thread may or may not be, believe it or not, someone can be a hypocrite and still make a valid and valuable argument.

Of course, if one is only interested in regurgitating their own opinions and squelching anything that might challenge those opinions, then it's a lot easier just to shout "HYPOCRITE" from the hilltops and not try to actually engage in any critical discussion.

Valid, unlikely.  Valuable, no.   Otherwise, you'd practice what you preach.   Don't tell me "That will force everyone to 20 or 0!!" when you're using 8 or 12 under the exact same circumstances.   That invalidates your opinion thus robbing it of value.

So person A comes along, makes an interesting argument for or against one of the proposed changes. But their past history does not fall in line with the argument they're making. It is invalid.

Person B comes along, makes the exact same interesting argument for or against one of the proposed changes. Their past history does fall in line with the argument they're making. The argument now magically is valid when before the exact some point was invalid.

I see.

It's shocking that the discourse in these forums is in the state it is.

-1

FWIW I 100% agree with the hypocrites can make valid points.

HOWEVER, If I stand at a podium giving a speech about the many health risks of smoking cigarettes, chain-smoking while giving the talk, I can't really be surprised when people scoff and/or walk away unpersuaded by my speech.

My data and content may be 100% valid, but everyone will naturally think "This guy doesn't even believe what he's saying. Why should I?"

Maybe, but it's extremely regressive to the entire concept of discussion and discourse to just outright reject an idea because of who is saying it before taking even a moment to consider if there's any merit there. Even the world's biggest quacks can occasionally provide something interesting and worthwhile.

Instead of just shouting down the hypocrites and waiting for somebody who isn't a hypocrite to come along with the same point to consider it, just consider it and debunk it. Maybe some good, actual idea will spring up from doing so to boot.

If one puts forth an idea that is contrary to what evidence shows they believe, others will be skeptical. "It's unfair to veto a trade because you don't like one of the owners" could be a true statement, but when the person making it has a history of vetoing all trades by 1 or 2 owners regardless of equity, the statement can and should be scoffed at. "Transaparent government is essential!" might be true, but when Hillary Clinton says it listeners are justified in laughing at her. If I run 12 in Training for most of my teams and post that it's a shame everyone is forced to spend 20 on Training, why would I expect anyone to take my statement seriously?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2015 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcbove on 5/8/2015 1:37:00 PM (view original):
I love that WIS is trying. But, I still think the biggest issue with budgeting logic is that for ADV the only reasonable strategies are going to be either ADV of 0 or ADV very close to 20. There needs to be medium value of some kind gained by having an ADV of 10. Crappy scouting with an ADV of 10 will be a waste of money and force people to one extreme or the other.

People use 10m for HS/Coll/IFA all the time.    Right now, that affects the projections of those prospects.   How would these updates change that?

I didn't say anything but ADV. I am under the impression that most knowledgeable players see value in an ADV close to 20 in some circumstances and 0 in most others.

I didn't say the updates would change anything.

If the goal is to make changes to encourage the use of ADV then it would probably be best for gameplay if there was value in an ADV of 10. I'm going to continue to be under the impression that an ADV of 10 is a waste of money because I'm not going to be able to make decisions based on it.

There is some validity to the complaints about not having a reset option from someone who just got down to 0 ADV and has not benefitted much from it. But how does WIS fix that? Even if they could make exceptions, wherever they draw the line will become the new focal point for anger. If they say anyone who has been at 0 for no more than 1 season, the guy who has spent 2 seasons at 0 has a beef. As has been pointed out several times here, anyone who didn't foresee that an update would include a change to negate 0 ADV was not paying attention. As has also been pointed out, with the unspecified changes not even being in place yet, none of us knows whether the intended goal of making ADV spending essential will even be reached. How steamed would people be if they were given an option to reset ADV, did so and ended up at 20, then realized that the changes really didn't make it worth abandoning the 0 ADV strategy?

Forum threads should be capped at 20 pages. The discussion seems to digress very quickly when it goes past that threshold.

You're clearly not saying that you would argue for allowing spite vetoes. So explain how that makes a claim that it's unfair to veto out of spite, made by someone who has a history of vetoing out of spite, something that should be scoffed at.

Why are we scoffing at the idea and not the person? It's an easy distinction to make.

Just saying it is human nature.

It is flawed, but it's reality.

In all of josh's examples, if the person speaking really believed what they were saying, that should be reflected in their actions. Otherwise they are full of sh!t.

Doesn't make their argument any less valid, but they will be scoffed at. Just have to know that going in.

Because the first logical thought is to wonder why you are making a suggestion you don't believe. It doesn't mean the suggestion automatically is wrong, but it does make it suspect. "With the changes it only makes sense to be at 0 or 20 in ADV, just like it currently only makes sense to have HS/COL at 0 or 20" carries more validity from someone who consistently has HS/COL at 0 or 20 than from someone whose teams are all at 12/8. It could be true that 0 or 20 will be the only sensible options for ADV, but I'm going to be more skeptical when it's voiced by an owner who doesn't believe what he's saying. Is that suggestion being voiced because the owner hopes it persuades owners in his worlds to immediately start a climb to 20 in ADV so he has an advantage by being one of the few at 12?

Is 1 going to be more accurate than 0?  Is 0 going to show nothing but (?)?   Is zero going to be accurate sometimes?

If I zero out my HS/Coll scouting because I can no longer see current ratings and my projected ratings are expected to stink out loud, should I really be forced to maintain $6M in my prospect budget? Hmmm. I should be allowed to punt the draft entirely with the new update.