Posted by trail on 4/19/2023 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/17/2023 10:12:00 AM (view original):
I totally agree Trail. Long shot EEs add absolutely nothing to the game from a gameplay perspective. It's randomness for the sake of randomness.
Why does the game reward lucky coaches and punish unlucky coaches who have nearly zero impact on the results.
All guys who are top 20ish should leave 100% of the time and those below top 100 should have a 0% chance of leaving. Seems simple enough
I think this is the essence of my position as well. In the best games, skill dominates due to a long learning curve, and luck creates opportunities on the margins. For the most part, I think HD gets high marks in this regard. There are dice rolls in recruiting, but you control which battles you enter. Outcomes of games are uncertain, but the variance in team performance is realistic and predictable. In most places, you can prepare for or hedge against randomness.
With EEs, there's certainly an argument to make that you can hedge against randomness by not signing NBA-caliber players, as Shoe has laid out. However, for any coach who's trying to build the best team in their world, this is not a viable option. We knowingly manage our risk through holding back player development to keep our fringe players from ascending the big board. But every season, due to the sheer number of dice rolls that occur, a few low probability events will occur, some benefiting coaches and some hurting coaches.
I don't necessarily agree with Shoe that there is information the community is not aware of that sways EE probabilities. But even if there is, the fact that it's unknowable means it's a missed opportunity to add another strategic element to the game and increase the learning curve, which would make the game even more fun and engaging.
As it stands, EE dice rolls can tremendously sway the balance of power among the top teams. Because they occur following the early signing period, there is generally minimal opportunity for a coach to react and adjust their recruiting strategy to compensate for a highly improbable event.
I admit that I'm particularly motivated about this because I generally take on a couple walk-ons, which makes my teams more vulnerable to these chance occurrences. This is a strategic decision to gain an advantage in recruiting, and I'd agree with anyone who says, "If you want to be less vulnerable to this, start running deeper rosters." Nonetheless, I believe a bit more strategic influence and less arbitrary randomness here would be a benefit to the game, increasing the learning curve and decreasing user frustration simultaneously.
"Nonetheless, I believe a bit more strategic influence and less arbitrary randomness here would be a benefit to the game, increasing the learning curve and decreasing user frustration simultaneously"
Spot on. It's arbritary randomness that doesn't allow for much strategic influence by the user. Lose a Soph who was 140th on the big board? Well, I guess you should have... What. Not recruited the guy? Tank his ratings? It's silly.