Posted by CoachSpud on 11/20/2016 9:42:00 PM (view original):
My point: “I actually think it will be kind of cool if that is so hard to figure out that everybody develops their own theories, everybody develops their own strategies based on their theories. THAT would be the game working as intended.” I’m talking about no one knowing the true formula. There would be no actual knowledge to share.
Someone disagreed, saying, “"I don't believe Attention Points should be anywhere near as vague as it is." This suggests they favor people being able to know the ratios of AP, HV and CV in 3.0. This in turn suggests degrees of shared knowledge, not always fair. This also implies that everyone would play it the same way if they had this knowledge, that there is a best way to play. My question is, what good reason would there be for preferring that, instead of everyone playing their own unique strategy? Why wouldn’t you want everyone playing their own unique strategy? Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
“New users are going to come into the game and realize there is no way for them to learn how to get better through trial and error.”
Poncho, you seem to be of the school of thought that the game needs to be real simple so new users can learn it, implying that new users are so much dumber than new users who started in 2.0. See, I don’t agree with that at all.
BTW, re.: "Keep in mind mike, we've probably lost roughly 1/3 of the old user base" ... not when you take into account so many guys going from many teams down to 1 or 2 or 3. Arguably, THAT accounts for most of the drop, or at least much of it.
Spud, in what way did me or cal_bears imply that new users are dumber than HD2.0 users? That's a pretty large stretch you just made there. The only thing I suggested is that a new user is going to get frustrated if they don't understand. Hell, current users are frustrated by it and they already understand the core mechanics of the game. Isn't that the purpose of this update, new user retention? Someone said it another post, that he has heard other new users say I don't have time to learn this. That's what actually pushed me out of getting into GD. I didn't have the time or energy to learn a new game.
Under 2.0, people had different theories and strategies. Some people like to shotgun, while others made concentrated efforts. Some people would start right from the beginning, others would wait a cycle or 2, and some would wait until even after signings start. I keep hearing people talk about how easy it was to predict whether or not you would win a recruit, so you would just stay off of him, but all it takes is for that school to get caught in multiple battles eating away at that recruiting budget, and now it's not so predictable if he can win. I keep hearing people talk about how the new game is more like "real life", but then when we talk about how we could see what recruits were considering another school, that we should not be able to see it. The thing is that is what happens in real life. They are typically soft verbals. Maybe they could have added a wrinkle in the game where a soft verbal might be a silent soft verbal who doesn't show up. The point is, I get so tired of people talking about this makes it more like real life, but then they pick and choose what they want to be more like real life to fit their desires. It's a game. We play it, because it's not real life.
As far as the drops, you're probably right that a good portion were just coaches reducing teams, but in the long run, what's the difference? We still end up with a boatload of empty worlds, lost knowledge from vets who helped new guys, and lost revenue for WIS. That still doesn't mean we didn't lose a lot of coaches.