Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair. You may prefer a less competitive game where it’s easier to sustain success in perpetuity. You’re entitled to your preferences. You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them.

You don't see the point. I mean, I am talking apples, you are talking oranges.

I understand your point fine. I don’t think it’s valid. Your preference for wanting easier, sustainable success is valid. Your argument that the game is broken because it’s not currently easy to sustain success is not valid.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair. You may prefer a less competitive game where it’s easier to sustain success in perpetuity. You’re entitled to your preferences. You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them.

You don't see the point. I mean, I am talking apples, you are talking oranges.

I understand your point fine. I don’t think it’s valid. Your preference for wanting easier, sustainable success is valid. Your argument that the game is broken because it’s not currently easy to sustain success is not valid.

I am not. If you want to penalize, go ahead, but make sure it's the same penalty for everyone. Cause you do not seem to understand that :

1) Some did not get any EE lost
2) Some lost one out of four
3) Some lost two out of four
4) Some ...
5) Some lost a player not on the big board.

I had the worst luck, so all my conf mates are beating my *** this season because their EES, mostly, stayed on the team. Some went deeper, one even made the final game. Not fair. If all have the same rules, all will have to paddle to get back into the thick of thing as I had to do it twice already, cause I had a three EES season too... not long ago.

And some owners are tweaking the growth of EES... And these EES remain on their team! Hey Anthony Davis, it's Calipari, don't practice dude... I mean, practice is overrated. Ok coach. You are truly competent... At the end of the season, hey Anthony, you did not develop your skills, remain another season,... Ok Coach. Season two, same crap.

In my opinion, the focus in debate about EEs should be on the challenges of hard to predict/unlikely EEs and whether the 3.0 balance is right for gameplay.

A year ago, then admin said they were working on earlier announcement. The timing question, in my opinion, creates a gameplay problem.

Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 9:58:00 AM (view original):
I fully understand the issue. Again, this is NOT some science that requires 8 years of HD college. Don't overestimate the intelligence required to understand HD.

The design, and I hope you know this, is to level the playing field and make it very difficult for the same 10 users to be in the Elite Eight every season. While you may or may not agree with that design, it's there. And it's there because this is a SIM GAME. You can't market a SIM GAME with the concept being "Try really hard, for many seasons, and maybe you can become one of those 10." You might call it Participation Trophy, and while I don't totally agree with that, there is some validity to it. WifS is trying to sell a game that will be enticing to new users who don't want to toil as a bottom feeder for real life years. Personally, I think they're doing a poor job of it, it takes over a year to even reach D1, but that's the concept.

Please tell me you understand. You don't have to agree but, hopefully, you understand.

The problem is that some will get lucky, others won't. Where is the fairness in this? If you want to penalize owners for drafting a top 20 players at his position or a top 10... Give everyone the same punishment, don't make random decide who gets the luck and wins the NT and which ones go to hell.

Sometimes the better team loses. I lost on a halfcourt shot a week ago. That's luck, right? There is no "practice halfcourt shot" setting. Sometimes you get lucky, like you did with recruiting in D2 Rupp where you won a 3-way with D1/D2 schools. Sometimes your luck is ****. You're not the only one who has bad luck.

And stop with this "fair" nonsense. Is it "fair" that you'll have A prestige Clemson and I'll have D- Turd State? I'll actually be paying more to play the same damn game and have a much worse chance of competing.

THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!!! WAAAHHHH!!!

Posted by l80r20 on 11/1/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"I am only top 165 this season because EES are not fair."

"Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair."

Those two posts separate the wheat from the chaff.

As usual, spud misses the point. In any event, 90 on the EE board is not "elite talent." Although I do agree that "fairness" is the wrong metric to be looking at here, since it's entirely subjective.

Two easy changes remove this issue, and also (much more importantly) make it easier for coaches to move to new programs and recruit in session 2: (1) lessen the comparative power/value of APs; (2) make many recruits have a "late" signing preference. Boom -- problem solved.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair. You may prefer a less competitive game where it’s easier to sustain success in perpetuity. You’re entitled to your preferences. You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them.

You don't see the point. I mean, I am talking apples, you are talking oranges.

I understand your point fine. I don’t think it’s valid. Your preference for wanting easier, sustainable success is valid. Your argument that the game is broken because it’s not currently easy to sustain success is not valid.

I think his argument is that the game is broken because losing 2 or 3 unlucky EE dice rolls cripples his team for at least 1 (and maybe more) seasons. Tough for me to disagree -- it makes for a screwy incentive system.

Posted by johnsensing on 11/1/2017 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 11/1/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"I am only top 165 this season because EES are not fair."

"Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair."

Those two posts separate the wheat from the chaff.

As usual, spud misses the point. In any event, 90 on the EE board is not "elite talent." Although I do agree that "fairness" is the wrong metric to be looking at here, since it's entirely subjective.

Two easy changes remove this issue, and also (much more importantly) make it easier for coaches to move to new programs and recruit in session 2: (1) lessen the comparative power/value of APs; (2) make many recruits have a "late" signing preference. Boom -- problem solved.

I think the better solution is to add some brand new recruits for session 2. JUCOs and a few good HS players who reclassify and suddenly become available. This would put everyone on an equal playing field to nab these players.

Posted by johnsensing on 11/1/2017 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 11/1/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"I am only top 165 this season because EES are not fair."

"Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair."

Those two posts separate the wheat from the chaff.

As usual, spud misses the point. In any event, 90 on the EE board is not "elite talent." Although I do agree that "fairness" is the wrong metric to be looking at here, since it's entirely subjective.

Two easy changes remove this issue, and also (much more importantly) make it easier for coaches to move to new programs and recruit in session 2: (1) lessen the comparative power/value of APs; (2) make many recruits have a "late" signing preference. Boom -- problem solved.

Except that every recruit not currently in a heated battle between DI's signs with a DII the first cycle of Session 2. DII's just need to camp on mid level DI recruits and accumulate AP's first session and it is near impossible for any DI school--even elite A+ Prestige with Max AP--to make a move as the first cycle of processing the all sign with the DII that has been camping on them. There is no penalty at all for DII schools recruiting "Elite" (by DII standards) players. If they get challenged session 1 then they can move their points on to another recruit before session 2, but if unchallenged they can amass such a lead that by second session its a guarantee. Would love to watch the press conference where the kid explains "After UConn lost their entire back court early entry to the NBA draft, coach not only offered me a scholarship, but also a start, and guaranteed minutes! Even though its been my dream to play DI ball since I was a kid, and I am blown away by the offer to not just play, but start at an elite school with such a rich history and prestige as UConn, I must turn down their offer in favor of Lander. [the crowd of reporters gasps in disbelief] The coach from Lander has been calling me as much as he is allowed since recruiting began, and even though I have always dreamed of playing at a school like UConn, never mind starting, I don't think it would be fair to Lander since he made so many phone calls. I mean, he really tried and put the effort in, so I am forgoing my hopes and dreams to do the nice thing for Lander's coach."

Zorzii- why are you still trying to explain your feelings on this subject to Mike, Spud and Poopman? You've said it 100 times already. There is literally nothing you can say to get them to change their minds just like you will never change yours.

Posted by grimacedance on 11/1/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 11/1/2017 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 11/1/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"I am only top 165 this season because EES are not fair."

"Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair."

Those two posts separate the wheat from the chaff.

As usual, spud misses the point. In any event, 90 on the EE board is not "elite talent." Although I do agree that "fairness" is the wrong metric to be looking at here, since it's entirely subjective.

Two easy changes remove this issue, and also (much more importantly) make it easier for coaches to move to new programs and recruit in session 2: (1) lessen the comparative power/value of APs; (2) make many recruits have a "late" signing preference. Boom -- problem solved.

I think the better solution is to add some brand new recruits for session 2. JUCOs and a few good HS players who reclassify and suddenly become available. This would put everyone on an equal playing field to nab these players.

I think that DII and DIII schools should face the same potential consequences as DI for recruiting elite talent. In second session, I have long thought it made sense to have the top players from DII (and the few who are good enough from DIII) transfer to DI for their final year of eligibility, just as they do in real life. This would create a new pool of recruits of legitimate mid level DI talent, that all the coaches who lost battles in session 1 or EE's could go after, all starting with a blank slate so nobody has an advantage carrying over from session 1.

Not only would this help balance second session recruiting, it would achieve the goals that mike and spud are so strongly advocating, of leveling the playing field so no DII or DIII programs can maintain elite status year in and year out. Not only would it benefit the sim game aspect that mike and spud want--making it easier for more coaches to have shots at winning by dismantling empires--it would also make the game better reflect the real world, a goal that many uses are after.

Seems like a win-win. Everyone who seeks elite talent at any level runs the same risks.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 9:58:00 AM (view original):
I fully understand the issue. Again, this is NOT some science that requires 8 years of HD college. Don't overestimate the intelligence required to understand HD.

The design, and I hope you know this, is to level the playing field and make it very difficult for the same 10 users to be in the Elite Eight every season. While you may or may not agree with that design, it's there. And it's there because this is a SIM GAME. You can't market a SIM GAME with the concept being "Try really hard, for many seasons, and maybe you can become one of those 10." You might call it Participation Trophy, and while I don't totally agree with that, there is some validity to it. WifS is trying to sell a game that will be enticing to new users who don't want to toil as a bottom feeder for real life years. Personally, I think they're doing a poor job of it, it takes over a year to even reach D1, but that's the concept.

Please tell me you understand. You don't have to agree but, hopefully, you understand.

The problem is that some will get lucky, others won't. Where is the fairness in this? If you want to penalize owners for drafting a top 20 players at his position or a top 10... Give everyone the same punishment, don't make random decide who gets the luck and wins the NT and which ones go to hell.

Sometimes the better team loses. I lost on a halfcourt shot a week ago. That's luck, right? There is no "practice halfcourt shot" setting. Sometimes you get lucky, like you did with recruiting in D2 Rupp where you won a 3-way with D1/D2 schools. Sometimes your luck is ****. You're not the only one who has bad luck.

We discussed this already, you know my counter.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):
And stop with this "fair" nonsense. Is it "fair" that you'll have A prestige Clemson and I'll have D- Turd State? I'll actually be paying more to play the same damn game and have a much worse chance of competing.

THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!!! WAAAHHHH!!!

This is mine.