I'm gonna give you two credit. You are trying REALLY hard to make this work in your favor. Coming up with any circumstance or scenario that proves you right.

Credit not required. I just pointed out that AP are required to open HV(thus hurting pkoop's argument). I then pointed out that 600 AP vs 1000 AP may not be as huge as you're pretending it is because preferences matter(thus hurting your argument). Facts are facts.

Feel free to point out that no one has stated "I want the reward without the risk" because that's true. But it's implied. It's a fact. I like reward without risk. Everyone does or should. It's just that some like to gripe when the risk factor affects them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 7:52:00 PM (view original):
Credit not required. I just pointed out that AP are required to open HV(thus hurting pkoop's argument). I then pointed out that 600 AP vs 1000 AP may not be as huge as you're pretending it is because preferences matter(thus hurting your argument). Facts are facts.

Good. I'm glad you clarified.

And now it's clear that you're totally lost on what is being discussed.

400 AP advantage not as huge as I'm pretending

Can't make this stuff up.

So you think 400 AP is greater than 12 HV? Or are you playing this game in a vacuum? You can't ignore the opposing viewpoint and make a legitimate argument.

Well, you can but it makes you look like a clown.

holy smokes... you're messing with me right. You can tell me. I'll admit that you got me.

Where did I ever say 400 AP is worth more than 12 HV

When two teams go all in, they're maxed out HVs and CV. If one team has 400 more APs than the other, they will have a better chance to sign the player

Assuming same preferences
and same prestige
and both teams want the player equally
and there's a full moon
and the groundhog didn't see his shadow

Well, that wasn't what pkoop was arguing. Did you decide to change what he was arguing? I'm not sure you have that authority.

400 ap is 8 hv worth, prolly more in Chapel's point of view. It's significant.

I mean, really, if I get to decide what everyone is arguing, I'm gonna be King of Winning Arguments in no time.

You can't make this up.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Well, that wasn't what pkoop was arguing. Did you decide to change what he was arguing? I'm not sure you have that authority.

Poopman was taking someone else's argument and spinning it around. That was pretty obvious.

It's literally the entire point of all the EE complaining bonehead. If you have an EE then you have fewer resources to recruit with per opening. Period. Poopman's 1st argument was that you actually don't get fewer resources (you do) and then 2nd argument was that even if you did get fewer resources, they don't have much of an impact in battles (they do).

So you don't spin arguments to your advantage?

LOL. You can't make this up.

Yeah

But I'm REALLY good at it.

So we done here for the night?

I've got a few hours.

Got a bye in league softball tourney.
Wife is away.
Skipped the gym.
Not enjoying an alcoholic beverage(I usually don't post when imbibing).
Just watching WS.

Ignoring benis’ deflection of the substantive arguments in this thread (Mike, maybe that is something you should consider, too) …

“I think his argument is that the game is broken because losing 2 or 3 unlucky EE dice rolls cripples his team for at least 1 (and maybe more) seasons.” Yeah, I think you’re right, he blames the game for his own failure.

“…not only would it benefit the sim game aspect that mike and spud want--making it easier for more coaches to have shots at winning by dismantling empires.” Haha, I never said anything like that, how about you Mike?

“If EE is ruining your squad for 2 full seasons, try a new approach.” Good idea. Part of that approach might be to owning the results of your own recruiting efforts, not blaming the game.

“Understanding probabilities and possibilities, and organizing your priorities to suit your taste for risk is absolutely a skill.” True, but to learn that skill they would first have to quit listening to the enablers like benis and mully and accept the idea that their own choices have consequences.

“If you're going to argue with someone, at least be honest enough to respond to their actual arguments.” … says the guy who isn’t honest enough to even call someone by their name. The irony is so thick it could be cut by a knife.

“Do you think 3.0 can be improved?” Yes, of course it can.

“But as long as recruiting is a commodity game based on a system of using resources to bid for talent, elite talent should never be easy to replace.” Of course, but that would require some guys to acknowledge that they’re actually whining about the consequences of their own choices. They and their apologists would rather blame the game. Hmm, that sounds familiar ...

“…why is shoe arguing that Miami (OH) should have more resources then Ohio State?” Nice reading comprehension there…NOT.

“how many D1 AP are required to open up the other options but it's pretty substantial in D3” Nah, choose a recruit of appropriate level for your team and with good preference matches, and it isn’t difficult at all.