Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2016 11:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 10/3/2016 7:56:00 PM (view original):
I'd call myself a fence sitter.
I think that for me, there is a risk that HD3 is too much like poker. To have skill reveal itself in poker, you have to play hundreds, maybe thousands of hands. If you are of average skill (for someone who plays) and you sit down with a Dan Coleman or Eric Seidel or Dan Negraneau type pro, and you play 5 hands, you got a good chance to win 3, and 90% of the time you'll win at least one of the 5.
In a game where the best strategy wins (and HD2 was not that game) you don't need a ton of games to reveal skill. Chess is a good example. No average player is going to hang with a grandmaster for even 1 game out of 5.
I agree, there's always a risk that any simulation can go too far in either direction. Neither would be particularly fun for a college basketball simulation, if taken to an extreme. That's the balance game makers need to find - what makes sense for the game they are building. It's important to recognize that different players have different preferences. This issue, recruiting in 3.0, boils down to how much tolerance a player has for navigating probabilities, doing things that may not work out the way you want.
Outrecruiting your opponent no longer means having more money and avoiding battles you aren't pretty sure you're going to win. It means being smart about how you prioritize your targets, being able to spot both superstars (which is still obvious) and players who can have outsized value that may go unrecognized, class balance, having contingencies, taking smart risks, and knowing what attributes are most vital for your system. I can understand not liking it because you don't like probabilistic games, or not being interested in learning a new game and developing a new process. That's fine, I'll have no argument with it. I just can't see how people can honestly look at this and determine that skill and strategy are diminished in this version. If anything, it's more important than ever to have a plan, and a backup plan.
you don't see how folks can look at a paradigm shift from the leader always winning a battle to the leader sometimes winning a battle, and think that skill and strategy are diminished? i don't see how you can not see it. i'm not saying i agree, there is a lot more to the overall package than that 1 item, but on that 1 item, around which the incessant argument about the definition of random rages, i think its pretty damn obvious how some people feel there is more luck involved.
maybe you are right, and you did get the point of previous posters. i don't really agree, getting the point in 1 of 5 posts doesn't fully quality IMO, but i can see how i would have been better suited to say - your point is getting lost in your argument about semantics. when most of the your time was spent trying to convince people to say non deterministic instead of random, its clear the point, whomever is trying to make it, is being lost.
final note - you say "You may not care about the distinction between good argumentation, a proper representation of opposing viewpoints, and hyperbole, but I do.". OK - then demonstrate it - by not spending three pages arguing about semantics, instead of having the good argument itself. you say you understand when other folks are using hyperbole, while also chastising said hyperbole as being inaccurate, which is obviously inherent in the definition. in short, the extent to which you simultaneously get the point, and don't get the point, is remarkable.
10/4/2016 2:53 PM (edited)