Posted by dcy0827 on 6/4/2016 3:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/31/2016 10:46:00 PM (view original):
I think its a pretty big ***** move to request a ban...then fallback on some bullshit account so your voice can still be heard.

Here's what they teach during day #1 at martyrdom school...you don't come back to life until god seble says so.

I would say "pretty big" is kind of an understatement. Ginormous, as the kids like to say today, is probably more accurate. Either way, whatever word you want to use to describe it, it's pretty damn weak.

If the young lad could spell better, I'd swear it was Etta in disguise.

quantity over quaility, too busy shitposting to lern to spell will

Posted by dcy0827 on 6/4/2016 3:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/2/2016 5:05:00 PM (view original):
"So, and I'm asking this honestly, you think a system which adds increasingly fractional decisions based on the vaguest possible information - and by your own words introduces "layers, luck, and ambiguity to the process" - actually directly increases, not reduces, the strategic functionality of the game. Is that what your suggesting, because I want to be clear on this???"

Your question, as framed, is incoherent to me. If you're asking if I think more ambiguity increases strategy, the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

First off, I disagree with your premise. I don't think the new system involves "increasingly fractional decisions". You're looking at it through a different kind of lens than the one I'm using. Every sports simulation I've ever played, going back to Baseball Mogul in the 90s, has had essentially the same debate - should the players have visualized ratings, and how absolute or vague should they be? HD has fallen very heavily on the concrete and unambiguous side. This update can be seen as a slight - though noticeable - shift toward more ambiguity; not even so much regarding the ratings, which are still absolute and discoverable (with a little extra effort), but regarding the existence of those players. Some players are simply going to be out of your view. A non-top-100 player who doesn't attend any camps is going to be visible only to a player who uses the assistant and gets lucky. So the old formula of "find players with the best ratings, then game your budget to save up enough money to go get them" is no longer a viable way to dominate. You have to be more creative to put together a good class year after year. It will be harder (presumably) for players to master the process to the point where they can dominate year after year. Conference power should become more fluid. A lot of opportunity is going to be created for a lot of players who have felt as though the game lends itself to a dominant class that's unreasonably hard to break into.

As for the other stuff, it's just not worth wasting words or emotional energy on. Going on about the past and what did or didn't or should have happened doesn't do anything. If it bothers you that much, spend your money somewhere else. I encourage people to put the effort into the beta (or learning about it, if you're not participating) and assume that this is the game that's going to exist, once the beta has run its course. If you can handle a little ambiguity in the process of trying to get the best players for your system, it's going to be a fun game.

ETA - shoe3 = pkoopman

I ask this in all sincerity Shoe. You state that you believe it will be harder for players to master the process to the point where they can dominate year after year. First, the game "is" named Hoops Dynasty, yes? Second, wouldn't that (presumably) make it even "harder" for the new coaches that this update is bound to attract (please note the sarcasm) to learn the system and be able to put together competitive teams? Or is there going to be so much luck involved that a new coach can simply fall into a top 10 type team by being lucky enough in his scouting? I'm not against new coaches succeeding by any means, we all started brand new at one point. What I'm concerned about is just how much of a factor luck is going to play in the game from this point forward. Recruiting is already the most important part of the game, by a good margin. If we take the most important part and make it where luck is a fairly significant factor in the game, where does that leave us but playing basketball's version of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"?

For transparencies sake: Dcy0827 = Emy1013

I'll try to answer your questions in order.

1. Yes. The game's name is Hoops Dynasty. That doesn't imply that it should be formulaic. I know there are a lot of mathematicians who play the game, but that's not me.

2. Whether it's harder to learn is a different question from whether it's harder to game. My position is that the new system is harder to game. I'm agnostic on whether or not it's harder to learn. It hasn't been difficult at all for me to adapt to, so far, but we're not all the way through, and it didn't take me all that long to figure out the old system either. What matters to me is which one is more fun to play, and so far, regarding the addition of scouting and player preferences, it's the new system, easily. So far.

3. There's already "luck" involved, in recruit generation. I don't look at the new scouting system as adding luck, but more along the lines of adding realism, and thereby reducing "gameability". The auction format for recruiting is ridiculous. My idea for a long time was simply to add player preferences to the game, because a lot more players at the top of their divisions should demand a lot more playing time. I was told that it simply wasn't feasible without a major overhaul, and from what little I know about coding and programming, that sounds reasonable.

4. I think there is a vast amount of real estate between the game we're playing in beta and "pin the tail on the donkey". Let's not overstate the case. It's not like we're just being randomly assigned players, or that we have no insight or no way to access player attributes and potential.

There's a lot of hyperbolic speculation about the update...take everything with a grain of salt and always check your source.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 6/4/2016 3:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/2/2016 5:05:00 PM (view original):
"So, and I'm asking this honestly, you think a system which adds increasingly fractional decisions based on the vaguest possible information - and by your own words introduces "layers, luck, and ambiguity to the process" - actually directly increases, not reduces, the strategic functionality of the game. Is that what your suggesting, because I want to be clear on this???"

Your question, as framed, is incoherent to me. If you're asking if I think more ambiguity increases strategy, the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

First off, I disagree with your premise. I don't think the new system involves "increasingly fractional decisions". You're looking at it through a different kind of lens than the one I'm using. Every sports simulation I've ever played, going back to Baseball Mogul in the 90s, has had essentially the same debate - should the players have visualized ratings, and how absolute or vague should they be? HD has fallen very heavily on the concrete and unambiguous side. This update can be seen as a slight - though noticeable - shift toward more ambiguity; not even so much regarding the ratings, which are still absolute and discoverable (with a little extra effort), but regarding the existence of those players. Some players are simply going to be out of your view. A non-top-100 player who doesn't attend any camps is going to be visible only to a player who uses the assistant and gets lucky. So the old formula of "find players with the best ratings, then game your budget to save up enough money to go get them" is no longer a viable way to dominate. You have to be more creative to put together a good class year after year. It will be harder (presumably) for players to master the process to the point where they can dominate year after year. Conference power should become more fluid. A lot of opportunity is going to be created for a lot of players who have felt as though the game lends itself to a dominant class that's unreasonably hard to break into.

As for the other stuff, it's just not worth wasting words or emotional energy on. Going on about the past and what did or didn't or should have happened doesn't do anything. If it bothers you that much, spend your money somewhere else. I encourage people to put the effort into the beta (or learning about it, if you're not participating) and assume that this is the game that's going to exist, once the beta has run its course. If you can handle a little ambiguity in the process of trying to get the best players for your system, it's going to be a fun game.

ETA - shoe3 = pkoopman

I ask this in all sincerity Shoe. You state that you believe it will be harder for players to master the process to the point where they can dominate year after year. First, the game "is" named Hoops Dynasty, yes? Second, wouldn't that (presumably) make it even "harder" for the new coaches that this update is bound to attract (please note the sarcasm) to learn the system and be able to put together competitive teams? Or is there going to be so much luck involved that a new coach can simply fall into a top 10 type team by being lucky enough in his scouting? I'm not against new coaches succeeding by any means, we all started brand new at one point. What I'm concerned about is just how much of a factor luck is going to play in the game from this point forward. Recruiting is already the most important part of the game, by a good margin. If we take the most important part and make it where luck is a fairly significant factor in the game, where does that leave us but playing basketball's version of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"?

For transparencies sake: Dcy0827 = Emy1013

I'll try to answer your questions in order.

1. Yes. The game's name is Hoops Dynasty. That doesn't imply that it should be formulaic. I know there are a lot of mathematicians who play the game, but that's not me.

2. Whether it's harder to learn is a different question from whether it's harder to game. My position is that the new system is harder to game. I'm agnostic on whether or not it's harder to learn. It hasn't been difficult at all for me to adapt to, so far, but we're not all the way through, and it didn't take me all that long to figure out the old system either. What matters to me is which one is more fun to play, and so far, regarding the addition of scouting and player preferences, it's the new system, easily. So far.

3. There's already "luck" involved, in recruit generation. I don't look at the new scouting system as adding luck, but more along the lines of adding realism, and thereby reducing "gameability". The auction format for recruiting is ridiculous. My idea for a long time was simply to add player preferences to the game, because a lot more players at the top of their divisions should demand a lot more playing time. I was told that it simply wasn't feasible without a major overhaul, and from what little I know about coding and programming, that sounds reasonable.

4. I think there is a vast amount of real estate between the game we're playing in beta and "pin the tail on the donkey". Let's not overstate the case. It's not like we're just being randomly assigned players, or that we have no insight or no way to access player attributes and potential.

Thank you for taking the time and giving an honest assessment of what you think.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 6/4/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):
There's a lot of hyperbolic speculation about the update...take everything with a grain of salt and always check your source.

haha, I think you're missing one of the larger theme's of this thread...the illuminati is in the title, so yeah, a little speculative.

Though given the circumstances of this WHOLE situation, I think these suspicions are not completely undue.

Ever since Beyonce joined the illuminati their work has gone down hill.

recruitment however has gone "up" on the brightside

Posted by pkoopman on 6/2/2016 5:05:00 PM (view original):
"So, and I'm asking this honestly, you think a system which adds increasingly fractional decisions based on the vaguest possible information - and by your own words introduces "layers, luck, and ambiguity to the process" - actually directly increases, not reduces, the strategic functionality of the game. Is that what your suggesting, because I want to be clear on this???"

Your question, as framed, is incoherent to me. If you're asking if I think more ambiguity increases strategy, the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

First off, I disagree with your premise. I don't think the new system involves "increasingly fractional decisions". You're looking at it through a different kind of lens than the one I'm using. Every sports simulation I've ever played, going back to Baseball Mogul in the 90s, has had essentially the same debate - should the players have visualized ratings, and how absolute or vague should they be? HD has fallen very heavily on the concrete and unambiguous side. This update can be seen as a slight - though noticeable - shift toward more ambiguity; not even so much regarding the ratings, which are still absolute and discoverable (with a little extra effort), but regarding the existence of those players. Some players are simply going to be out of your view. A non-top-100 player who doesn't attend any camps is going to be visible only to a player who uses the assistant and gets lucky. So the old formula of "find players with the best ratings, then game your budget to save up enough money to go get them" is no longer a viable way to dominate. You have to be more creative to put together a good class year after year. It will be harder (presumably) for players to master the process to the point where they can dominate year after year. Conference power should become more fluid. A lot of opportunity is going to be created for a lot of players who have felt as though the game lends itself to a dominant class that's unreasonably hard to break into.

As for the other stuff, it's just not worth wasting words or emotional energy on. Going on about the past and what did or didn't or should have happened doesn't do anything. If it bothers you that much, spend your money somewhere else. I encourage people to put the effort into the beta (or learning about it, if you're not participating) and assume that this is the game that's going to exist, once the beta has run its course. If you can handle a little ambiguity in the process of trying to get the best players for your system, it's going to be a fun game.

ETA - shoe3 = pkoopman

If that question, as framed (in the most precise way possible), was incoherent to you then how did you know exactly what it meant and answer its specific question??? It would be pretty easy for me to call your whole first paragraph incoherent, but I won't...not because it isn't, but because I don't feel like being a dick as of yet.

I think its more that obvious we are looking at this through different lenses, but if you don't think the new system involves increasing fractional decisions then I just do not really know how to reply, I feel like what I've already said in previous replies speaks for itself. And as for the rest, I'm also having a tough time responding in a way that isn't beating a deadhorse or will actually make sense to you given your unique understanding of the word strategy. But, because those camps and the assistant coach recruiting are completely random and absolute jokes, the only other way is to use FSS, and because you don't have any information to begin with, it causes you to start shooting blindly based on recruit #s and distance. So, given everything you said, your statement "You have to be more creative to put together a good class year after year," is just a clever (and not in a good sense) way of saying "You're gonna have to be lucky year after year to be consistently successful." It makes me beg the question again, how do these new tactics get elevated to the realm of strategy??? The current state of recruiting is not an unreasonably hard thing to break into, and dumbing it down or changing it to a system that requires luck and a process that makes you feel rewarded for having made uncritical decisions is not the way to address that. What they could do to create a system which makes the playing field more even while maintain the current strategy based system is to implement some (like the one i previously mention) of the thought-out solutions offered by the community over many years, instead of whatever it is they're currently doing.

As your last paragraph: for a lot of people who care about this game, its not a waste of words or emotional energy. So, telling people to just get over it makes me give two big middle ******* fingers up to the screen when I read crap like that. And guess what else...I am going to stop spending my money here because of these change. But MAYBE (just ******* maybe), though very highly unlikely, the things that are said here might cause the conductor of this train to slam on the brakes.

However, your last sentence made me lulz the hardest, roughly that "If you can handle a little ambiguity in the process, its going to be a fun game." Do you not realize that there is already tons of ambiguity in this game as it relates to the engine, and you already have to be lucky on a yearly basis to have any real consistent success. So, how can they make the game better, by making luck a bigger factor in probably the most strategic aspect of the game...the ability to actually build a team (as far as it can be done in one's situation) in accordance with any type of vision. Similar to what I've been saying this whole time, the people who enjoy this game the most and are longterm dedicated users, from what i can discern, find enjoyment much more in strategic numbers based simulations rather than in uncritical button pushing whose positive reinforcement is subject to exceedingly diminished marginal returns.

Nor do I think WIS should negotiate with terrorists. As others have said, adding potential caused a much bigger exodus than this one will, and it made the game better. Making the game better needs to be their #1 priority, because no advertising push is going to matter if the game only appeals to a small cross-section of sports fans who also happen to be numberphiles. People are leaving now. New players aren't sticking now. Worlds are "emptying" now. Making the game better and more fun for more people is the primary objective, and so far this beta version is moving in the right direction.

I hope you don't run a business. I would wager that WIS has lost literally $100s of thousands as a result of the rollout of potential. It's good for those of us that are left that they did it, I think. I think, in fact, that the general consensus among the user base is that potential ultimately improved the game. But it's worth pointing out that there is a survivor's bias here - the people who didn't like potential are gone. And the user base never rebounded from that. Repeating the same mistake now, as I've said before, probably kills HD fast.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2016 12:39:00 AM (view original):
I get it. Someone is moving your cheese, and you're ******. That's fine. Rant all you want if it makes you feel better. I don't know if there is any brake-slamming that can be done, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Nor do I think WIS should negotiate with terrorists. As others have said, adding potential caused a much bigger exodus than this one will, and it made the game better. Making the game better needs to be their #1 priority, because no advertising push is going to matter if the game only appeals to a small cross-section of sports fans who also happen to be numberphiles. People are leaving now. New players aren't sticking now. Worlds are "emptying" now. Making the game better and more fun for more people is the primary objective, and so far this beta version is moving in the right direction. You call it "increasingly fractional decisions", I call it realistic player discovery, or "scouting". Introducing scouting to the game - instead of being handed a list of x thousand players with detailed and precise attributes laid out before you spend a moment of time, or a fraction of your fake budget - absolutely does add strategy to the game, and denying it is intentionally obtuse. There isn't going to be a formula of 1) sort the database, 2) find the players with the attributes you want, and 3) guess which ones you can afford. If that passes for "strategy" to you, then I'm not surprised at all that we like different types of games. And if that's the game you want to keep playing, then code it. Point all the middle fingers you want, I have thick skin. My advice is the same. Get to know the beta, because it is almost certainly the future of this game.

hahaha, you're a grade A joker...and not the new HD grade A of anything rated higher than 50, but as in the real 90+ way. "Negotiate with terrorists" that's freaking priceless yo. Since when was the last time a terrorist said, "Hey, I'm going to use the power of my voice to bring about or stop serious changes affecting those things which are important to me!!!". Or is simple expression itself, through either words or monetary decisions, enough to qualify oneself as such...and just a heads up, thanks to Citizens United, both of those things are now protected under the 1st - yes, the first - amendment. But something tells me that you might like to see the "words" portion of those two removed.

And let me drop some knowledge on you - since you mentioned the adding of potentials, the exodus it caused, and numberphiles (a completely made-up word by the way, and one that I didn't use or mean as such) - if I really wanted to, I could make a damn good argument that you've inadvertently proven that my position on this is indeed the correct one. Unluckily for you, I really want to because your ignorance on the matter has become very threatening to the future of HD, but luckily for everybody else I'll just throw out the half-assed quick version for brevity's sake. So, before potential, you knew a whole lot more what it was in fact that you were actually getting. Therefore, the all-around excellent guys were harder to get, but the role-playing guys were still quite abundant - and because there weren't potentials they might be relatively easy to acquire regardless of distance. However, the addition of potential changed all of this precisely because the obscuring of player actuality meant players that were previously less valuable (or more valuable) became more valuable (and inversely less valuable depending on the circumstances). Do you know what this obscuring actually brought with it...in case you haven't guessed yet...a reduction the concrete information needed by coaches on which to make strategic decisions. Thus, a mass exodus resulted because they didn't take into account that the vast majority of people who serious enjoy this game aren't jocks who that had 15 too many concussions in high school, but sports fans who also never quite understood the Dungeons and Dragons crowd. While that is just the half-assed version, that might very well be the reason a shitload of people left, or it could like your view that they didn't want to learn anything new, but I'd be much more willing to bet that the answer is somewhere much closer to the explanation I produced, given the rising popularity this game use to enjoy.

However, because I was actually here at the time, I did like the update and thought it was innovative because of the new risk/reward/opportunity that it introduced into the game. But, like I said a post or two ago, this update is the opposite of innovation in any way because it addresses absolutely none of the interests put forward by the HD community...as compared to the introduction of potentials which actually did, in my opinion. Instead of real change, it offers luck/ambiguity/layers in order to level the playing at the expense of undermining a fundamental aspect of the game - or maybe even worse because they want to make the game look cooler or appeal to some stupid ex-high school jock crowd.

And newsflash, you condescending *** (seriously though, are you doing that on purpose - if you are then great job, but if you're not then you might be on par with shawnfucous), I have "got to know the beta" and its terrible. Secondly, I can't ******* code that great at all, so I can't drop everything I'm doing in life to become proficient enough to create something like this, just because I derive a lot of enjoyment from it. Plus, I know its almost certainly the future of this game, which I've said a buch of times, so why else would I be here using hypothetical voice to try and change/stop this from happening.

I was a jock with probably 8 to many concussions (if zero is the number you really want) and play Dungeons and Dragons. Just saying.....

Posted by Trentonjoe on 6/5/2016 4:43:00 AM (view original):
I was a jock with probably 8 to many concussions (if zero is the number you really want) and play Dungeons and Dragons. Just saying.....

OMG .. Real Dungeons and Dragons or the fake kind on a computer :)

I was both of those too .. (Jock, too many concussions, D&D with 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, etc. sided dice and rule books)

Also played Strat-O-Matic baseball, football, and basketball with 1 Red and 2 White dice. Played dozens (if not hundreds) of seasons of these games with my High School sports teams .. in, wait for it, 1977 to 1981.

Posted by dcy0827 on 6/4/2016 3:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 6/2/2016 5:05:00 PM (view original):
"So, and I'm asking this honestly, you think a system which adds increasingly fractional decisions based on the vaguest possible information - and by your own words introduces "layers, luck, and ambiguity to the process" - actually directly increases, not reduces, the strategic functionality of the game. Is that what your suggesting, because I want to be clear on this???"

Your question, as framed, is incoherent to me. If you're asking if I think more ambiguity increases strategy, the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

First off, I disagree with your premise. I don't think the new system involves "increasingly fractional decisions". You're looking at it through a different kind of lens than the one I'm using. Every sports simulation I've ever played, going back to Baseball Mogul in the 90s, has had essentially the same debate - should the players have visualized ratings, and how absolute or vague should they be? HD has fallen very heavily on the concrete and unambiguous side. This update can be seen as a slight - though noticeable - shift toward more ambiguity; not even so much regarding the ratings, which are still absolute and discoverable (with a little extra effort), but regarding the existence of those players. Some players are simply going to be out of your view. A non-top-100 player who doesn't attend any camps is going to be visible only to a player who uses the assistant and gets lucky. So the old formula of "find players with the best ratings, then game your budget to save up enough money to go get them" is no longer a viable way to dominate. You have to be more creative to put together a good class year after year. It will be harder (presumably) for players to master the process to the point where they can dominate year after year. Conference power should become more fluid. A lot of opportunity is going to be created for a lot of players who have felt as though the game lends itself to a dominant class that's unreasonably hard to break into.

As for the other stuff, it's just not worth wasting words or emotional energy on. Going on about the past and what did or didn't or should have happened doesn't do anything. If it bothers you that much, spend your money somewhere else. I encourage people to put the effort into the beta (or learning about it, if you're not participating) and assume that this is the game that's going to exist, once the beta has run its course. If you can handle a little ambiguity in the process of trying to get the best players for your system, it's going to be a fun game.

ETA - shoe3 = pkoopman

I ask this in all sincerity Shoe. You state that you believe it will be harder for players to master the process to the point where they can dominate year after year. First, the game "is" named Hoops Dynasty, yes? Second, wouldn't that (presumably) make it even "harder" for the new coaches that this update is bound to attract (please note the sarcasm) to learn the system and be able to put together competitive teams? Or is there going to be so much luck involved that a new coach can simply fall into a top 10 type team by being lucky enough in his scouting? I'm not against new coaches succeeding by any means, we all started brand new at one point. What I'm concerned about is just how much of a factor luck is going to play in the game from this point forward. Recruiting is already the most important part of the game, by a good margin. If we take the most important part and make it where luck is a fairly significant factor in the game, where does that leave us but playing basketball's version of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"?

For transparencies sake: Dcy0827 = Emy1013

No, I think it will be easier for a new coach to learn .. because ..

1. It better mimics real life college basketball (or football or any other college sport) recruiting. It is silly that you see every recruit in the nation and can predict with almost 100% accuracy how good or bad they will be and the only recruiting calculation you have to make is if you have enough recruiting cash to keep everyone else from taking them.

2. Discovery (based on skill, not complete randomness) should be the hardest part of recruiting .. not completely ignored. And I say skill and not random, because you can see any recruits you want at level 1. Then you devise the best strategy to see as many recruits a you can in as much detail as you decide you need. Do you go for within 400 miles at level 3 and 4 .. do you go within 1000 miles at levels 2 and 3 .. do you scout places with less schools .. so you build your teams on internationals.

I think this takes much more skill than before .. while also allowing SOME recruits to possibly also slip through the cracks. So it is not always anyone who knows the game can just immediately assign the top 100 recruits at Division I to the teams that will take them at the beginning of recruiting with 95% accuracy.

The way it is now is, new guys come .. start recruiting and playing, and realize they will never get one of the Baseline A+ teams for 15 calendar years. So they quit.

With this system, at least they can compete fairly (hopefully).