Posted by dahsdebater on 9/28/2016 12:17:00 PM (view original):
If you wanted to make the game more approachable for new users, you would make the HD forums more obvious/easy to find. You wouldn't make a more complicated and less deterministic game. And it's not like the HD forums are any easier to get to than they ever were in the past. So the actual problem - that some people have an information deficit - has not even be addressed.
Information deficit isn't the "actual problem". The problem with 2.0 is that the list of things that were not intuitive and counter-intuitive was far too long.
Not intuitive (not an exhaustive list):
Scouting and recruiting are the same activity
scouting and recruiting are part of the same budget
scouting and recruiting happen only between seasons
scouting and recruiting is the first thing you have to do
recruits send you mixed messages, and you need to know what the "scholarship message" is, and what it means because...
recruits sign with "leading" team 100% of the time, even when two teams are essentially even
there are recruits who won't talk to you, and you have to follow a path to find that out for each recruit
player attributes don't match up exactly with practice plan
you will probably be waiting at least 18 months to have a shot at coaching the team you probably had in mind when you signed up - if everything breaks your way
Counter-intuitive (not an exhaustive list):
Recruiting is basically bidding on eBay
all recruits have fully visible, and 100% accurate attribute numbers
recruits make decisions based on how much money you spend on them
recruits never consider depth chart as part of their decision
you shouldn't battle conference opponents, because you want them to have good teams
you shouldn't battle anyone with more scholarships to fill
you shouldn't battle for a recruit 360 miles away with a team that is 350 miles away from that recruit
scouting reports give you the same info over and over
The question is not about a straight simplicity vs. complexity dichotomy. The question is whether the level of complexity roughly matches with the preferences of their target audience. The game can (and should) be complex AND attractive to that target audience. My son was a junior in high school when he signed up for the game under this handle. He's bright, likes sports, likes sports simulations, was intrigued by the idea of this game. But he lost interest after a few seasons. It was too formulaic, felt too much like he needed to "do X, avoid Y, achieve Z". And the high stakes recruiting sessions were not a good fit for a busy high school kid who can't afford to miss sleep. So I took over the handle as kind of a placeholder, until he regains interest (he will likely give it another go when the 3.0 kinks have been smoothed, but with a new handle, because I'm keeping this one now lol). It's only an anecdote, but I don't think he's an outlier. He's the kind of customer who should have liked this game. He gave up not because it was too complex, but because it was too formulaic, counter-intuitive, and just didn't feel anything like a real college basketball simulation.
9/28/2016 1:37 PM (edited)