Posted by reinsel on 10/3/2016 7:56:00 PM (view original):
I'd call myself a fence sitter.

I think that for me, there is a risk that HD3 is too much like poker. To have skill reveal itself in poker, you have to play hundreds, maybe thousands of hands. If you are of average skill (for someone who plays) and you sit down with a Dan Coleman or Eric Seidel or Dan Negraneau type pro, and you play 5 hands, you got a good chance to win 3, and 90% of the time you'll win at least one of the 5.

In a game where the best strategy wins (and HD2 was not that game) you don't need a ton of games to reveal skill. Chess is a good example. No average player is going to hang with a grandmaster for even 1 game out of 5.

I agree, there's always a risk that any simulation can go too far in either direction. Neither would be particularly fun for a college basketball simulation, if taken to an extreme. That's the balance game makers need to find - what makes sense for the game they are building. It's important to recognize that different players have different preferences. This issue, recruiting in 3.0, boils down to how much tolerance a player has for navigating probabilities, doing things that may not work out the way you want.

Outrecruiting your opponent no longer means having more money and avoiding battles you aren't pretty sure you're going to win. It means being smart about how you prioritize your targets, being able to spot both superstars (which is still obvious) and players who can have outsized value that may go unrecognized, class balance, having contingencies, taking smart risks, and knowing what attributes are most vital for your system. I can understand not liking it because you don't like probabilistic games, or not being interested in learning a new game and developing a new process. That's fine, I'll have no argument with it. I just can't see how people can honestly look at this and determine that skill and strategy are diminished in this version. If anything, it's more important than ever to have a plan, and a backup plan.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2016 10:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/3/2016 8:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2016 11:08:00 AM (view original):
So we can agree that the process is not, in fact, a random one, and you will retract the suggestion that we "Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it" because it is misleading hyperbole? Cool. You're entitled to a preference that recruiting be entirely deterministic. That's fine. I disagree, and apparently so does WIS, but you want what you want, and it's valid. Let's just stick to the honest preferences, and not go off into a made up universe where 3.0 might as well just randomly assign recruits, and pretend that the outcomes would be similar.

In case you didn't catch it, that was a blatant exaggeration. I thought it was obvious, but apparently it was not.

No, I got it. That's what hyperbole means.

Fair enough. I missed it. I only caught the part stating I would retract a suggestion indicating to me you may have taken it seriously.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2016 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 10/3/2016 7:56:00 PM (view original):
I'd call myself a fence sitter.

I think that for me, there is a risk that HD3 is too much like poker. To have skill reveal itself in poker, you have to play hundreds, maybe thousands of hands. If you are of average skill (for someone who plays) and you sit down with a Dan Coleman or Eric Seidel or Dan Negraneau type pro, and you play 5 hands, you got a good chance to win 3, and 90% of the time you'll win at least one of the 5.

In a game where the best strategy wins (and HD2 was not that game) you don't need a ton of games to reveal skill. Chess is a good example. No average player is going to hang with a grandmaster for even 1 game out of 5.

I agree, there's always a risk that any simulation can go too far in either direction. Neither would be particularly fun for a college basketball simulation, if taken to an extreme. That's the balance game makers need to find - what makes sense for the game they are building. It's important to recognize that different players have different preferences. This issue, recruiting in 3.0, boils down to how much tolerance a player has for navigating probabilities, doing things that may not work out the way you want.

Outrecruiting your opponent no longer means having more money and avoiding battles you aren't pretty sure you're going to win. It means being smart about how you prioritize your targets, being able to spot both superstars (which is still obvious) and players who can have outsized value that may go unrecognized, class balance, having contingencies, taking smart risks, and knowing what attributes are most vital for your system. I can understand not liking it because you don't like probabilistic games, or not being interested in learning a new game and developing a new process. That's fine, I'll have no argument with it. I just can't see how people can honestly look at this and determine that skill and strategy are diminished in this version. If anything, it's more important than ever to have a plan, and a backup plan.

you don't see how folks can look at a paradigm shift from the leader always winning a battle to the leader sometimes winning a battle, and think that skill and strategy are diminished? i don't see how you can not see it. i'm not saying i agree, there is a lot more to the overall package than that 1 item, but on that 1 item, around which the incessant argument about the definition of random rages, i think its pretty damn obvious how some people feel there is more luck involved.

maybe you are right, and you did get the point of previous posters. i don't really agree, getting the point in 1 of 5 posts doesn't fully quality IMO, but i can see how i would have been better suited to say - your point is getting lost in your argument about semantics. when most of the your time was spent trying to convince people to say non deterministic instead of random, its clear the point, whomever is trying to make it, is being lost.

final note - you say "You may not care about the distinction between good argumentation, a proper representation of opposing viewpoints, and hyperbole, but I do.". OK - then demonstrate it - by not spending three pages arguing about semantics, instead of having the good argument itself. you say you understand when other folks are using hyperbole, while also chastising said hyperbole as being inaccurate, which is obviously inherent in the definition. in short, the extent to which you simultaneously get the point, and don't get the point, is remarkable.

Lol, thanks gil. Pretty great watching someone spend paragraphs chastising someone else for getting into a semantic argument (that happens to matter, but whatever).

You've successfully reasserted your forum authority now, you can go about your day.

"you don't see how folks can look at a paradigm shift from the leader always winning a battle to the leader sometimes winning a battle, and think that skill and strategy are diminished?"

I can see your point, but I disagree. Going from a sure thing to being able to influence the probabilities right up to the time of signing looks to me like an increase in required skill and strategy. Dumping massive amounts on a nearby five-star recruit and having no battle for him looks like the least skill and strategy of all. But I suppose everybody has their own unique viewpoint.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/4/2016 3:50:00 PM (view original):
"you don't see how folks can look at a paradigm shift from the leader always winning a battle to the leader sometimes winning a battle, and think that skill and strategy are diminished?"

I can see your point, but I disagree. Going from a sure thing to being able to influence the probabilities right up to the time of signing looks to me like an increase in required skill and strategy. Dumping massive amounts on a nearby five-star recruit and having no battle for him looks like the least skill and strategy of all. But I suppose everybody has their own unique viewpoint.

You've never had that viewpoint so it's very hard for any long term vet to look at your posts and see your opinion.

It'd be like me trying to talk about Diesel engines, all I know is I hate the exhaust smell and black smoke so I'm not a person that can debate benefits of gas over diesel. A lot your arguments sound like this, you've never been in those big DIA battles and seen all the strategy that goes into it. You've never taken a D+ BCS school and turned them into an A school. And you've never seen how detrimental the new system is to those fringe teams trying to break thru that are going to get beat by the roll of the dice on their recruiting targets and completely destroy what they've built in 1 season. HD2.0 allowed us build dynasties with skil. Yes the hiring, firing, and over-valued prestige made it hard but doable, HD3.0 has not sold that it will make building dynasties better.

Waykbordr, by your reasoning if you've never been President of the US, you cannot vote or even discuss the presidency on its merits. If you've never killed someone, you cannot call murder wrong. If you've never caught a pass from Tom Brady, you cannot discuss his greatness -- or lack thereof -- as a QB. No, a matter can still be discussed on its merits.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/4/2016 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Waykbordr, by your reasoning if you've never been President of the US, you cannot vote or even discuss the presidency on its merits. If you've never killed someone, you cannot call murder wrong. If you've never caught a pass from Tom Brady, you cannot discuss his greatness -- or lack thereof -- as a QB. No, a matter can still be discussed on its merits.

1. Presidency: yes that's why they don't let people from Singapore and India vote for our president. D3 is like Singapore, just because we speak the same language doesn't mean we have the same experience.

2. Murder: lets skip that one

3. Tom Brady: if you don't watch the game you can't speak of it. That's baseball for me, no clue on it. So how long have you been watching the big board and players positions, then watched which teams are getting the top recruits and determining how well they used there budget. I'm sorry but there is no Chris Berman or Kirk herbstriet spoon feeding us the proper opinions.

Posted by waykbordr on 10/4/2016 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/4/2016 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Waykbordr, by your reasoning if you've never been President of the US, you cannot vote or even discuss the presidency on its merits. If you've never killed someone, you cannot call murder wrong. If you've never caught a pass from Tom Brady, you cannot discuss his greatness -- or lack thereof -- as a QB. No, a matter can still be discussed on its merits.

1. Presidency: yes that's why they don't let people from Singapore and India vote for our president. D3 is like Singapore, just because we speak the same language doesn't mean we have the same experience.

2. Murder: lets skip that one

3. Tom Brady: if you don't watch the game you can't speak of it. That's baseball for me, no clue on it. So how long have you been watching the big board and players positions, then watched which teams are getting the top recruits and determining how well they used there budget. I'm sorry but there is no Chris Berman or Kirk herbstriet spoon feeding us the proper opinions.

In all honesty spud, there are a lot of people in this country who should not be able to vote, simply because they don't have a clue what they are voting for. I'd be willing to bet 60-70% of voters cannot give you the basic details of the economic policies of their candidate of choice without someone basically telling them what to think about it. I say this with no disrespect intended, and I 100% am not viewing this as a superiority thing, but this is how I see guys like you and ward with 5 seasons in the game and little to no real experience in the game. I know it sounds bad to say your vote is worth less, but when it comes to something like this, you just don't have the same frame of reference as people who have been here 3,5,10 years.

The rest of your examples are bad. I can tell you enough about Tom Brady's skills, because I've watched him enough and have an understanding, but then we go back to the point I just made. I am not so knowledgeable about football, that anyone with any impact on the game would consult me for my opinion. Your current input on the game is equivalent to my input on a discussion about football when talking to actual pros.

" In all honesty spud, there are a lot of people in this country who should ... "

Oops, take your "should" somewhere where it is appropriate. We are trying to discuss the game on its merits, or lack of merit.
Eg. "Going from a sure thing [HD2.0] to being able to influence the probabilities right up to the time of signing [HD3.0] ..."
Eg. " Dumping massive amounts on a nearby five-star recruit and having no battle for him [HD2.0] ..."

If you cannot or will not discuss the game on its merits, please at least observe how out of place your personal attacks are, and likewise note that they do nothing to further the conversation. Thank you.

I'm really liking this "I'm a victim" tactic Spud has been taking today. Nice change of pace.

Posted by Benis on 10/4/2016 9:12:00 PM (view original):
I'm really liking this "I'm a victim" tactic Spud has been taking today. Nice change of pace.

Likely someone different posting under the shared alias account.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/4/2016 8:25:00 PM (view original):
" In all honesty spud, there are a lot of people in this country who should ... "

Oops, take your "should" somewhere where it is appropriate. We are trying to discuss the game on its merits, or lack of merit.
Eg. "Going from a sure thing [HD2.0] to being able to influence the probabilities right up to the time of signing [HD3.0] ..."
Eg. " Dumping massive amounts on a nearby five-star recruit and having no battle for him [HD2.0] ..."

If you cannot or will not discuss the game on its merits, please at least observe how out of place your personal attacks are, and likewise note that they do nothing to further the conversation. Thank you.

Spud, there was absolutely no personal attack at all. I simply stated a fact. You've barely been around long enough to really understand the ramifications of your requests. Your view of the game is from a very small window compared to most.

Secondly, I took my "should" exactly where it belongs. It was your example used to make your point. I just showed how your example didn't actually help your point and actually made the point for those in disagreement with you. I pointed out a voter who is voting on name alone could actually be harming the country, because they don't understand the ramifications of what they are voting for, but the point was made not to discuss that. It was to show you the relation to your input in the game. Your inputs with such a small window, may harm the game in the long run, but you wouldn't know that since you are fairly new.

In addition, the game has been discussed on it's merits which usually resulted in yourself or others just calling everyone whiners and telling the people who have been a big part of this game for so long to kick rocks, because you, the new guy is satisfied. I'm not saying everyone has been civil, but the way some of you have responded to those concerned result in a breakdown of civil communication.

It's too bad we can't have the old and the new versions offered to customers so they have more choices; not sure if it's practical but if they could pull it off, it might retain customers and have the potential to attract more.

"Spud, there was absolutely no personal attack at all."

"I say this with no disrespect intended, and I 100% am not viewing this as a superiority thing, but this is how I see guys like you and ward with 5 seasons in the game and little to no real experience in the game. I know it sounds bad to say your vote is worth less, but when it comes to something like this, you just don't have the same frame of reference as people who have been here 3,5,10 years."

Well, then thank you for the ... "compliment" ... and now can we go back to discussing the game?