Posted by fd343ny on 12/1/2016 10:19:00 AM (view original):
there are for sure unexpected EEs

it is rare to see someone not on the big board go, but reasonably often one sees someone who is "likely staying" go

guys who are "on the fence" are coin tosses - roughly

especially tough to plan ahead if you have 3 or 4 possible EEs at different spots - and you can figure it is likely that say 2 will go - but cant tell which 2

this should become less of an issue after a couple more seasons since the 3.0 makes having 3 or 4 EEs less likely. In transition, it is painful

this is correct

Posted by bathtubhippo on 12/1/2016 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):
Regarding EE, several of you laid out examples of guys going who were on the fence or likely staying. And that a deep run in the NT makes it more likely.

So, with all this info in hand, how "unexpected" can they be? You know the parameters, more or less, for an EE. If I see "on the fence" and I made a run to the Sweet 16, I don't think his departure would be all that unexpected.

Anyway, I understand have 4-5 is troublesome whether they're expected or not. But that should go away if talent is spread out better. And, even if you do manage a "super class", you know what you're getting into.

the problem with your logic here --> by the time you've made that NT run, it's too late to have prepared for the unexpected, because recruiting session 1 is over before the NT starts.

I'll just go ahead and disagree as it's never to early to prepare for the unexpected.

Do you wear a seatbelt? Are you expecting an accident?

Veteran owners should know when they have excellent players who MIGHT declare. If they don't, I'm not sure how they acquire those excellent players. Nonetheless, a little prep, just in case, can't hurt.

Anyway, I think it becomes a moot point soon enough. Talent should be more spread out. If it isn't, the user who builds the "super class" knows the deal.

this answer could be made in support of any feature of the game - imagine a feature that is totally stupid, bad for game play and unfair. But disclosed. Yes, one can say "plan for it". Yes, that is an answer.

Does that make the feature good for game play? or fair? no

the question should be whether it is feasible to plan for it. I think clearly not in the transition from 2.0 to 3.0. In the long term, as EEs spread out, it will generally be feasible, but some situations will be bad for game play and, in my opinion, the way EEs work should be adjusted for better game play

If the game had a feature that every now and then - at random - rarely - one would get a message that three of your players were arrested on drug charges or died in a drunk driving accident - one could say "plan for that possibility" when you structure your roster. That isnt the same as EEs of course, but "plan for it" just isnt a total answer.

I've said, repeatedly, that I don't know if this was the right change. But change was needed. The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated. Perhaps a "softer" stick should have been wielded. I equate the problems related to EE now as ripping the band-aid off quickly.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 3:55:00 PM (view original):
I've said, repeatedly, that I don't know if this was the right change. But change was needed. The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated. Perhaps a "softer" stick should have been wielded. I equate the problems related to EE now as ripping the band-aid off quickly.

This basically sums up the entire HD 3.0 change. Users like MikeT23 say "Its not fair, these other coaches are better than me and have built up programs that I don't know how to compete with. You have to do something so I am just as good as them. Its not faaaiiiiirrrrr!!!" Cry me a millennial river.

The statement that " The top users/schools had an advantage that HAD to be negated." is utterly ridiculous as this is the very point that most of the defenders of 3.0 have been arguing against. If your statement is true, then HD 3.0 amounts to am explicit punishment of successful coaches with the intent to redistribute the power structure of the game. AKA, playing god and eliminating actual competition, changing the rules to make sure the better players don't win too much and the worse players win more. Your head is so far up your *** you cant see when you are arguing against your own point. Again, cry me a millennial river. Your generation with be the downfall of America.

Uh, I'm not crying. Aren't you the one that's populating this forum with "3.0 has taken away the advantage I had!!!"? Go play Madden on Rookie. That seems to be your speed.

LOL. You looked at my profile. I'm not under 18 nor a millennial. Or from Cuba.

Clown.

Posted by mamxet on 12/1/2016 3:48:00 PM (view original):
this answer could be made in support of any feature of the game - imagine a feature that is totally stupid, bad for game play and unfair. But disclosed. Yes, one can say "plan for it". Yes, that is an answer.

Does that make the feature good for game play? or fair? no

the question should be whether it is feasible to plan for it. I think clearly not in the transition from 2.0 to 3.0. In the long term, as EEs spread out, it will generally be feasible, but some situations will be bad for game play and, in my opinion, the way EEs work should be adjusted for better game play

If the game had a feature that every now and then - at random - rarely - one would get a message that three of your players were arrested on drug charges or died in a drunk driving accident - one could say "plan for that possibility" when you structure your roster. That isnt the same as EEs of course, but "plan for it" just isnt a total answer.

But we're not talking about adding recruitable drug addicts to the game. Early entries are realistic. High levels of competition and volatility for elite commodities are entirely realistic. If anything, I wonder why more of those elite commodities don't bolt after one year. The fairness issue falls flat, because the price and risk is the same for every team that goes after those valuable, volatile commodities.

Possumfiend has been wielding the best argument here recently, and I haven't seen anyone address it. This is the price of those elite commodities. It's high, and you have to compete for them. You won't be able to hoard them year in and year out. When you get one, you have enjoyed some degree of good fortune. And if you lose it, it's difficult to immediately make up for it. You can always take the walk-ons and try again next year. Playing with 8-9 high level players has always been an option, and will continue to be one that successful coaches will sometimes use. It may also mean a down year where you (like every single real life team, even Kentucky) sometimes settle for something other a national tournament run.

the "plan for it" argument has some weight in the longer term. Not a valid argument in the transition seasons. My primary complaint on EEs is the transition, where I think WIS knew people would be in a jam and just decided that that was fine given the small number of customers affected. They are entitled to make that decision about their product and their customers of course.

I only assume you are a millennial because you are looking for handouts instead of earning your pay. You are the one who said " The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated." You literally said the best players need to be brought down to the level of normal players, they need to have their earned advantage removed.

What I am saying is "3.0 has taken away the advantage I EARNED!!!" See the difference? Put in work, get rewarded.

Also, if you were 18 you wouldn't be a millennial. My guess is you are between 26 and 32, and got a lot of soccer participation trophies when you were a kid.

Also also, I am pretty sure Cuba doesn't have a stable enough internet connection for you to play games like this.

Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I only assume you are a millennial because you are looking for handouts instead of earning your pay. You are the one who said " The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated." You literally said the best players need to be brought down to the level of normal players, they need to have their earned advantage removed.

What I am saying is "3.0 has taken away the advantage I EARNED!!!" See the difference? Put in work, get rewarded.

Also, if you were 18 you wouldn't be a millennial. My guess is you are between 26 and 32, and got a lot of soccer participation trophies when you were a kid.

Also also, I am pretty sure Cuba doesn't have a stable enough internet connection for you to play games like this.

Wrong again, clownshoes.

I literally said "The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated" because the advantage, earned or built in, created an environment where it was better to stay at D2 than move up to D1 and be slaughtered. You may know, but not care, that HD needs owners. It's my belief that people join to coach a team they see in March not some random D3 they didn't know existed. But, when you read this forum, it's obvious the top owners enjoy their dominance and don't want it to disappear. It did. Suck it up, buttercup.

Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I only assume you are a millennial because you are looking for handouts instead of earning your pay. You are the one who said " The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated." You literally said the best players need to be brought down to the level of normal players, they need to have their earned advantage removed.

What I am saying is "3.0 has taken away the advantage I EARNED!!!" See the difference? Put in work, get rewarded.

Also, if you were 18 you wouldn't be a millennial. My guess is you are between 26 and 32, and got a lot of soccer participation trophies when you were a kid.

Also also, I am pretty sure Cuba doesn't have a stable enough internet connection for you to play games like this.

Wasn't credits and reward points your reward for a job well done? Did you real need a system where once you got to the top is was nearly impossible to get knocked off the top?

are you afraid of more fair competition?

Posted by fd343ny on 12/1/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):
the "plan for it" argument has some weight in the longer term. Not a valid argument in the transition seasons. My primary complaint on EEs is the transition, where I think WIS knew people would be in a jam and just decided that that was fine given the small number of customers affected. They are entitled to make that decision about their product and their customers of course.

That's true that the problem, if there is one at all, is just in the transition. You're surely not suggesting that they wreck the long term game to favor those who have a temporary disadvantage for one or two transition seasons, are you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I only assume you are a millennial because you are looking for handouts instead of earning your pay. You are the one who said " The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated." You literally said the best players need to be brought down to the level of normal players, they need to have their earned advantage removed.

What I am saying is "3.0 has taken away the advantage I EARNED!!!" See the difference? Put in work, get rewarded.

Also, if you were 18 you wouldn't be a millennial. My guess is you are between 26 and 32, and got a lot of soccer participation trophies when you were a kid.

Also also, I am pretty sure Cuba doesn't have a stable enough internet connection for you to play games like this.

Wrong again, clownshoes.

I literally said "The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated" because the advantage, earned or built in, created an environment where it was better to stay at D2 than move up to D1 and be slaughtered. You may know, but not care, that HD needs owners. It's my belief that people join to coach a team they see in March not some random D3 they didn't know existed. But, when you read this forum, it's obvious the top owners enjoy their dominance and don't want it to disappear. It did. Suck it up, buttercup.

But only 64 teams get to compete in march....what about the rest of the coaches? And of those 64, it is only about 15 schools that actually have a chance at landing top recruits and winning the tourney (among them, really only 5-8). How do we fix this? Do we have multiple coaches at every school so everyone can be a winner? Wouldn't it be great if Coach Cal shared the reins at UK with Mick Cronin so he could have a chance at being the coach of a successful program? Sadly, thats not how it works. Coach Cronin has to earn the advantage Calipari has, and Coach Cronin hasn't figured out how yet, so he is still stuck on the outside looking in, captaining the battle damaged but still barely floating barge that is Cincinnati through the cesspool that is Ohio. You know, kind of like you before they made the game the kind where everyone gets a trophy.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/1/2016 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I only assume you are a millennial because you are looking for handouts instead of earning your pay. You are the one who said " The top users/schools had an advantage that had to be negated." You literally said the best players need to be brought down to the level of normal players, they need to have their earned advantage removed.

What I am saying is "3.0 has taken away the advantage I EARNED!!!" See the difference? Put in work, get rewarded.

Also, if you were 18 you wouldn't be a millennial. My guess is you are between 26 and 32, and got a lot of soccer participation trophies when you were a kid.

Also also, I am pretty sure Cuba doesn't have a stable enough internet connection for you to play games like this.

Wasn't credits and reward points your reward for a job well done? Did you real need a system where once you got to the top is was nearly impossible to get knocked off the top?

are you afraid of more fair competition?

Not at all--really don't care about the credits. I happily paid to play HD and would have continued to do so if they hadn't given me free seasons for being good at it. My reward was winning, getting to play against the best competition and sometime coming out on top. Fair competition in a DYNASTY game is letting people reap the rewards of building a dynasty. Unfair competition is artificially leveling the playing field to give those who just aren't that good a better chance. I relished the competition at the top--getting there is why I started playing this game. There is competition at every level, and I had to work my way up to get to compete on a national stage against the best coaches in the game. Before that I was competing against 2nd tier coaches, and before that in DII....etc...a new coach at Jackson State should not expect to be able to compete with a long term coach at Kentucky or Kansas or UConn. They are an exhibition game for the better team to tune its play distribution, just like in real life. HD 3.0 handicaps the successful coaches (through EE's, elimination of post season money, and prestige not meaning crap anymore) and boosts the unsuccessful ones (through coin flips, and capping recruiting effort). Now everyone can have a chance for the best recruit, even if you have no idea what you are doing! Yay, everyone gets a trophy! Everyone is special!!!