Posted by snafu4u on 9/1/2018 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/1/2018 5:06:00 PM (view original):
“Coach Cal recruits one-and-dones and does so knowingly. If his players went against the odds and stayed until their SR year his teams would be unstoppable.”

Lets talk this through, because this is the heart of most of the stupid things Benis has said over the past 2 years. Benis doesn’t like probability, and the occasional surprise that comes with it. Benis wants absolutes. So he leans hard on “realism” on this one, single issue, because sure, when measured against the modern sport, if HD’s standard was realism, the top 10-15 players of every class should be one-and-dones. HD doesn’t do that. That’s because realism isn’t the standard. The standard is good competitive gameplay.

Coach Cal does knowingly recruit one and dones. There is no such thing in HD. But there are guys very likely to be early entry candidates (if Coach Cal was an HD coach, he would probably knowingly recruit them). And there are guys who could possibly be early entry candidates. And there are guys who will not be early entry candidates. Knowing the difference between them, and planning for possibilities - as opposed to knowing the determined outcomes beforehand - are skills. Stop treating them as though it’s some kind of unearned “luck”. Buddhagamer and Bathtubhippo are great (not lucky) coaches.

Look at the Soph that was not on the big board the Benis just lost to an EE....based on everything I have seen in 11 real world years of playing this game, that player is not an EE candidate as a sohpomore and would be questionably one as a JR. It had nothing to do with skill, Benis did a great job recruiting a player that should have been a lock for 3 years, and very likely 4, but instead the random dice factor came in and took a soph not in the top 20 at his position, while, by the same random dumb luck, other coaches got to keep the #1 rated player at their position.

This is exactly right. The results of the big board play a HUGE role in how good a team will be the following season. I lost 3 guys who were on the fence from a FF team. I ended up losing in the 2nd round the following season. If the dice rolls go my way then I'm one of the favorites to cut down the nets. Would I be considered a great coach if that happened? Guess so.

Bottom line - The randomness is TOO impactful to the game.

And unless you're sitting at an A+ prestige school, its unlikely you can replace elite talent season after season.

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/2/2018 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/2/2018 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/2/2018 7:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/1/2018 7:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/1/2018 7:10:00 PM (view original):
Coach Cal and any other coach that recruits EE type of players don't suffer from the same things HD coaches do. If Coach Cal loses 3 EEs, guess what, it doesn't matter. Because he just goes out and gets 3 more! He doesn't run in to the situation of... "oh it's too late in the season to get any good players. I'll just take these D2 guys that I can get, and we'll suck for a while".

EEs need to declare earlier. And resources be handed out in some manner. Something agreed upon by CS. Whether it's full resources, half resources, prorated resources, whatever works. What would possibly be the problem with doing that... The good teams with good prestige can stay relavant? Would that thought actually be viewed as a problem here? That's crazy talk

If EEs declare early, fine - although it’s not that simple, because they’d have to change the formula to exclude awards and postseason to do it.

Resources are a non-starter. Here’s the thing - it’s not a bug. It’s not a mistake that teams don’t have the APs from EE to lock down replacements. That’s the design. It’s supposed to be difficult to replace elite players. You’re making an argument that the game should be easier once you get to the top. Ask Coach Cal (the guy who doesn’t have a real life Dynasty) if it’s easy.

If you dont like the outcome, change the gameplay. Don’t pile *all* of your APs into your top guy. Spend some in other places. If you don’t want to do that, take a walkon and try again next year with that big AP bludgeon. You make choices. These poorly thought out proposals limit the amount of valid choices coaches can make.

Shoe, as always, I understand what you're saying. My argument is that I don't like what you are saying. So I come here to voice my opinions on that. I don't play D1, mainly because of EE issues. At D2/D3 you can stay relevant more often since you don't have to deal with the EE issue. No one complains that coaches are staying competitive year after year at those levels. Why would it be an issue if that happened at D1? In fact, in real life, that's how it works at D1! The good teams are always good (for the most part. Not every single season.)

You mentioned "if you don't like the outcome, change the gameplay".... That's exactly what I think should happen. The game itself should change how EEs are handled. Is it going to change? No, probably not. But that's why we all come here. To discuss changes that we would like.

You say it's not a bug that teams don't have AP from EEs. You're right, it's not. But it should be. You're telling me, that as a coach, you work your way thru the ranks, recruiting the best talent you can to grow everything. You dominate D3, move up, dominate D2 move up, dominate low D1, move up. What a fantastic coach you have become. Now you're at high D1, doing the same things you've done all along, and now...... you need to be punished! We're taking away your ability to continue to do the things you've done to get to this point all along, in recruiting superior talent. And now we're going to give you a chance to win, but we're gonna make it harder on you specifically. That's what the current EE game logic says to me. I just happen to not like it. You can love it all you want.

Why should you have to make different choices, and aim for lesser talent, and basically limit your own recruiting ability, once you reach the top?! That makes no sense. And defending that idea is bonkers. Big 6 coaches should NEVER have to think "I don't wanna recruit TOO good this season. I need to aim lower"

When I say change the gameplay, I specifically mean *do not change the game*. You need to change the way you play, if you don’t like what happens as a result. If you hate that EEs exist, don’t play D1. That has always been part of the game, and always will be. If you want to play D1 at a high level, you need to learn to manage the volatility of elite players.

”You say it's not a bug that teams don't have AP from EEs. You're right, it's not.”

I’m glad we agree on that, because there are some folks here convinced this is not the intended game design. They are mistaken.

“Why should you have to make different choices, and aim for lesser talent, and basically limit your own recruiting ability, once you reach the top?! That makes no sense. And defending that idea is bonkers. Big 6 coaches should NEVER have to think "I don't wanna recruit TOO good this season. I need to aim lower"

The game is more complex than understanding 90 is higher than 80. You have to manage some other things as well to maintain high level competitiveness at D1. You are playing a multiplayer *competitive* game, with lots of other people who are also trying to do well. This is not FarmVille. You don’t get to stay on top just by being here the longest, and knowing all the tricks and hacks and secret handshakes.

I most definitely agree that it's by design. I just don't like the design. That's why my gripe is not with you, my gripe is with the design. Where you and I butt heads at, is that you like the design and defend it. Where I don't like the design, and disagree with it. That's all. And I choose not to play D1 because of it.

And At D1, because of EE issues, the game IS more complex than 90 being better than 80. But why? It's not at any other level of the game. I think it's wrong that way. At low levels of D1 where schools aren't getting EE players, it's not that way. Nor is it at D2 and D3. The EE situation as is, discourages coaches like me from considering to move up. Could I be the only coach that thinks this way? Maybe. But on the flip side, there's NO coach out there that says.... the system has the EE thing down pat! I'm dying to play D1 because of it.

So it's flawed. When I play Monopoly, I think it's weird that Park Place and Boardwalk are the only two high end, blue properties. When the other color properties have 3. I still like to play the game, and it's also ok to discuss improvement ideas. Knowing nothing will change. It's all just table talk.

I’m all for discussing preferences. You’re entitled to a preference. You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them. (And before mully chimes in here, no, the game has not catered to my preference, either; if it did, there would be no cash, everyone would have the same AP, and recruits would make decisions based on prestige, prioritization, and preference matches. I detest the eBay bidding for commodities model).

The0nlyis and his disciples weren’t/aren’t about preferences, they are about sabotage. That’s why Benis continues to misuse the term “random”, intentionally spreading misinformation about the game. His interest is in falsely presenting the folks who are really really good at D1 in 3.0, like Buddha, bathtubhippo, and joeykw, as just lucky. As if he couldn’t have known that Jefcoat was a guy who could go early (even though he started threads complaining about not being able to successfully keep his attributes low because his work ethic was too high).

0nly wanted a game that could be known and dominated. His puke has infected way too many otherwise reasonable folks; snafu’s incoherent standards for “Dynasty”, for example, where there are more actual exmples in 3.0 than in real life history, and yet somehow 3.0 is “punitive” and success is based on “luck”.

The game is not too hard for you. If you don’t like dealing with EEs, play D2. That’s exactly the same answer you’d get if you were a real life coach.