Posted by deathinahole on 6/22/2010 4:55:00 PM (view original):
My end point is...no one in this thread thinks it's more fun the way you have stated it.

So going on, and on, and on about it will only do one of two things, maybe both; 1. WIFS implements your idea and everyone except you thinks it sucks. 2. It makes you look desperate.

And I think you probably have been so insulted, by better than I.

I think it's more fun

Posted by deathinahole on 6/22/2010 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Seriously, 3 people keep hammering away that it's this great idea and everyone else takes dumps on it.
The majority doesn't want it. Drop it.

Glanced through the thread and found I think 16 unique posters...

5 are for apollo's idea

8 are against

3 of the posters didn't really state a firm stance either way

So that's 16 people out of how many HBD owners?

There is no majority opinion for all HBD owners that can be discerned from looking at the general sentiment of this thread, it's really about time to drop all this "The majority has weighed in and no one in HBD likes your idea" nonsense.

16 is not a representative sample of HBD as a whole

All we have are 2 very loud and opinionated groups debating a point.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2010 10:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by apollo7 on 6/22/2010 4:11:00 PM (view original):
But I would say that the sum total of attribute decreases based on injuries surpasses the sum total of attribute increases based on DITR.  I would say that in fact losing attribute points from injuries is "losing something for nothing"...so to speak.

So according to the "something for nothing" naysayers, I guess we shouldn't have injuries in the game either, since its random...we might as well be playing craps or roulette.  (and don't say its not since you have a medical budget, which impacts the frequency and severity but doesn't completely eliminate).

Oh, and don't forget how its decreasing the total talent pool...which increases the bar for fielding a good team.   Wish there was some way to counteract this game breaking, unbalancing, random and completely unacceptable situation.  After all, this is a STRATEGY game, there is no room for this injury foolishness.

"I would say that the sum total of attribute decreases based on injuries surpasses the sum total of attribute increases based on DITR."

Here's the flaw in this argument (I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on it):

You state that injuries decrease the total sum of talent in a particular world.  You also state that DITR increases the total sum of talent in a particular world.  You then propose that the total sum of talent lost via injuries outweighs the total sum of talent gained via DITR.

If this was indeed true, then we would be seeing a noticeable decrease in overall talent in worlds over time, since this cumulative loss of talent would get larger from season to season.

Clearly, that's not the case.  Overall, HBD appears to be running at a steady run-rate of talent.  Many worlds are currently in season 15, 16 or even 17.  If overall talent levels were dropping, we would have noticed by now.  In fact, there would have been very loud outcries in the forums stating so.

It therefore follows that an enhanced DITR system, which brings more talent gain into worlds, would see HBD shift from a steady run-rate of talent to an increasing run-rate of talent.  Which I'm pretty sure is not what most people want.

I will acknowledge that point that total attribute gains from all sources and total attribute losses from all sources is probably equal.  I still think that in any given season the CURRENT ATTRIBUTE points gained for DITRs in excess of what they normally would have gained, in a particular season, is less than the total CURRENT ATTRIBUTE points lost due to injuries, on average, in a single season.  Remember that you might have 2 DITRS per year (of which you might have a total of 8 to10 at the most in your entire organization), and against how many injuries per year in your entire organization?  10?  15?  20? 

So for the sake of argument, let's say that decreases from injuries and increases for DITR are equal or less(which I don't think is the case), that still doesn't change my argument for increasing DITRs.   I won't go over it again, just read the prior posts.

Plus, regardless of whether it is less, more, or equal, you still must admit that the "getting something for nothing" argument is invalid, considering that injuries are "losing something for nothing."

And don't forget the draft, 25 players "for nothing" every year.  Oh, but that's not for nothing, I have to earn those by setting my draft board properly.  But on the other hand, the best way to get better draft picks is to do the opposite of earning them, ie: tanking.    Now there's some logic for you.  Seems to me the tankers get something of enormous benefit (high draft picks) for nothing (tanking) every season.   But instead we are going to have a cow over slightly increasing the effectivness of DITRs?  I don't know what more to say or how to make it any clearer.  You can't force someone to see logic once they have so deeply invested in a position, unless that person is of enormous integrity, purpose, and humbleness...rare qualities in today's world of polarity and division.

"All we have are 2 very loud and opinionated groups debating a point."

Welcome to the Internet.

I think the issue people have with increasing the amount/effectiveness of DITRs is that most (if not all) of us agree that risk should come with reward.

Injuries are an existing risk, along with the other user-controllable variables that inhibit prospect development, but most of us anti-DITR guys are against adding an element of random risk to player development to offset the random rewards teams might make through an increased DITR process. The game does – and should – reward time spent and knowledge gained. This has worked for me at times and against me at others, because my free time is a fluctuating variable and sometimes I fall behind the curve, so I'm not just protecting my own advantage.

I agree that many seem to be disappointed with the DITR process, and some improvements could almost certainly be made. But I also think, as I stated earlier, that "if anything is to be changed about DITRs, it should be more likely to reward owners who spend time gaining experiential knowledge about how it works. So basically, if the DITR setup is changed so that some owners are willing to trade one (somewhat) sure thing for two guys who they think have a chance to become DITRs, then that might be kind of fun."

I'm sure my suggestion can be improved upon, but that's part of contributing to a discussion. You post an idea, other people attempt to find the flaws in your argument, you defend/refine your position and hopefully something useful comes from it. But more likely, we've all wasted some time practicing our arguing skills. Welcome to the Internet!

I blocked apollo a couple of days ago because I thought WifS would be more "fun" without him so I have no idea what he's saying but what if the "useless" DITR were removed for the equation?  The pitcher whose stamina goes from 53 to 98 but splits are still in the 20s?    The LF who suddenly develops some awesome range for a LF but whose hitting numbers stay in the 20s?   Would that make people happy?

In essence, you'd still get the half dozen DITR who could develop into BL players without the guys who never will.  The rest of the teams get no notification.

Now, to play Devil's Advocate to my own suggestion, doesn't that suck the "fun" out of DITR for the 20+ owners who'll get no notifications?  Am I the only user who looks forward to DITR and then, when I open the emails, say "Awww, nuts, all I got was a rock?"   To me, that's still fun.   Maybe I get nothing but knowing all season that I might get something for nothing is "fun". 

Apollo:

"And don't forget the draft, 25 players "for nothing" every year. Oh, but that's not for nothing, I have to earn those by setting my draft board properly. But on the other hand, the best way to get better draft picks is to do the opposite of earning them, ie: tanking. Now there's some logic for you. Seems to me the tankers get something of enormous benefit (high draft picks) for nothing (tanking) every season."

Two comments on that:

1) The draft is hardly "something for nothing", because you have to allocate a portion of your $185m budget towards draft scouting, and another portion towards prospect budget to actually sign the draftees. Looking at my three worlds, those three budgets average out to about 20% of total budgeting. That's pretty significant. It's a bit silly to classify 20% of your annual budget as "nothing", wouldn't you agree? Plus, you do have to put the effort in to rank the players on your board in order to maximize what you get from the draft. Again, classifying that effort as "nothing" is a bit of an insult to those who spend a good deal of time preparing their draft rankings. If those two things are not clear enough for you, then I'll challenge you to set your HS/College scouting budgets to 0/0, go with all the default draft settings, don't even look at the players or rank them, and let us know how the draft works out for you. I'll make a prediction: "crap for nothing".

2) Regarding tanking: many of the better private worlds have instituted win minimums, over one to four seasons, as a safeguard against tanking for higher draft picks. So if you see getting thrown out of a world for tanking as an "enormous benefit", then you have an interesting view of things.

"You can't force someone to see logic once they have so deeply invested in a position, unless that person is of enormous integrity, purpose, and humbleness...rare qualities in today's world of polarity and division."

This would apply to you too, correct?

It should also be noted, in Apolloland, that IFA and FA are "something for nothing".

tecwrg, all valid points. I've said my peace. Nothing really more I can add.

I applaud you for intelligently debating the issue, unlike two year old MikeT23. (I am picturing him with his fingers in his ears and eyes closed...every once in a while pointing and yelling 'TARD).

Posted by travisg on 6/23/2010 7:20:00 AM (view original):
I think the issue people have with increasing the amount/effectiveness of DITRs is that most (if not all) of us agree that risk should come with reward.

Injuries are an existing risk, along with the other user-controllable variables that inhibit prospect development, but most of us anti-DITR guys are against adding an element of random risk to player development to offset the random rewards teams might make through an increased DITR process. The game does – and should – reward time spent and knowledge gained. This has worked for me at times and against me at others, because my free time is a fluctuating variable and sometimes I fall behind the curve, so I'm not just protecting my own advantage.

I agree that many seem to be disappointed with the DITR process, and some improvements could almost certainly be made. But I also think, as I stated earlier, that "if anything is to be changed about DITRs, it should be more likely to reward owners who spend time gaining experiential knowledge about how it works. So basically, if the DITR setup is changed so that some owners are willing to trade one (somewhat) sure thing for two guys who they think have a chance to become DITRs, then that might be kind of fun."

I'm sure my suggestion can be improved upon, but that's part of contributing to a discussion. You post an idea, other people attempt to find the flaws in your argument, you defend/refine your position and hopefully something useful comes from it. But more likely, we've all wasted some time practicing our arguing skills. Welcome to the Internet!

I agree with just about everything here travisg.

Tying DITR likelihood even more so into things like makeup, playing time, coaches, steady promotion through the minors (among other things) would be a great way to give us system that rewards owners who work at it with better DITRs

This way tough decisions will need to be made, for instance "do I shell out money for a LoA hitting coach because he may increase the small chance I have of unearthing an all-star type DITR?" or "Do I trade this AAA prospect who is a certain 11th or 12th pitcher on a staff and is relatively safe (average makeup, super high health) for 3 super high makeup guys in the low minors who aren't of ML potential now but could get a big DITR boost?"

I have no problem with that.  If the issue is that we should have to put some investment (ie: budget) into something (presumably coaching) in order to get the reward of better DITRs, sounds like a good idea.

Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 9:14:00 AM (view original):
I have no problem with that.  If the issue is that we should have to put some investment (ie: budget) into something (presumably coaching) in order to get the reward of better DITRs, sounds like a good idea.

That's precisely the issue; some investment should be necessary to receive gains, whether it's your real-life time or your limited HBD budget.

What if the number of DITRs you see were tied to your advanced scouting budget? Then it would be up to your coaches to push them toward their improved potential. I would also suggest that potential DITRs be somewhat identifiable (e.g., patience/temper/makeup combos, high velocity/low control pitchers, high range/bad glove fielders, etc.) but by no means certain. That way, it might be possible for owners to troll for low-cost int'l FAs in hopes of polishing those turds into diamonds through budget allocations and time spent scouting other teams' players.

That is, it would present an additional strategy for acquiring talent that didn't involve tanking and would also allow for risk (not all or even many players would become DITRs and not all of them would reach their potential).

WOW.  Should we have to put some sort of investment into getting good players?   Let me think on that one for a moment.  

After careful deliberation, I've decided, yeah, we should.   That's sort of what this game is about.

Um, adding something constuctive? Like, "it's more fun"?

DITRs hit a 6 on the fun-o-meter!