Can you stop this? Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Agreed
11/4/2017 8:30 AM
Who agrees with the OP?

Votes: 55
(Last vote received: 11/8/2017 1:27 AM)
11/4/2017 8:58 AM
The developers don’t want to incentivize resource gaming. If you don’t want the sim to try to sign players for you, make sure you get to 9.
11/4/2017 9:56 AM
Yeah, I've got no problem with this. If you have unbalanced classes, you have to accept the risks with the rewards.

I genuinely feel bad for the OP because Barrett is hot garbage, but that's the risk.
11/4/2017 10:37 AM
Posted by shoe3 on 11/4/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
The developers don’t want to incentivize resource gaming. If you don’t want the sim to try to sign players for you, make sure you get to 9.
So how does the OP "make sure to get to 9" under the current game model? Per the post above, he was at 70+ percent and lost 3 RNG's as well as a fourth of unknown percentage. He's doing everything "right" in the sense that he's going after recruits that he's favored to get. If he's not maxing resources and accepting 70 percent when he could be turning that into 100 percent, then, yes, I'll say the fault is his because he accepted a risk where none was required. But if he maxed on the recruits, what's the better way? Aim lower?
11/4/2017 11:13 AM
Posted by rednu on 11/4/2017 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 11/4/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
The developers don’t want to incentivize resource gaming. If you don’t want the sim to try to sign players for you, make sure you get to 9.
So how does the OP "make sure to get to 9" under the current game model? Per the post above, he was at 70+ percent and lost 3 RNG's as well as a fourth of unknown percentage. He's doing everything "right" in the sense that he's going after recruits that he's favored to get. If he's not maxing resources and accepting 70 percent when he could be turning that into 100 percent, then, yes, I'll say the fault is his because he accepted a risk where none was required. But if he maxed on the recruits, what's the better way? Aim lower?
Aim lower, aim wider, aim differently... lots of options. Among them, aim exactly the same, and it will usually work out a lot better than losing all the battles. You’ll win all 3 70-30 battles a lot more often than you’ll lose all 3.
11/4/2017 11:26 AM
Posted by rednu on 11/4/2017 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 11/4/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
The developers don’t want to incentivize resource gaming. If you don’t want the sim to try to sign players for you, make sure you get to 9.
So how does the OP "make sure to get to 9" under the current game model? Per the post above, he was at 70+ percent and lost 3 RNG's as well as a fourth of unknown percentage. He's doing everything "right" in the sense that he's going after recruits that he's favored to get. If he's not maxing resources and accepting 70 percent when he could be turning that into 100 percent, then, yes, I'll say the fault is his because he accepted a risk where none was required. But if he maxed on the recruits, what's the better way? Aim lower?
Obviously he should have signed a guy who was only 90% worthless instead of 100% worthless.
11/4/2017 11:26 AM
Posted by Benis on 11/4/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rednu on 11/4/2017 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 11/4/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
The developers don’t want to incentivize resource gaming. If you don’t want the sim to try to sign players for you, make sure you get to 9.
So how does the OP "make sure to get to 9" under the current game model? Per the post above, he was at 70+ percent and lost 3 RNG's as well as a fourth of unknown percentage. He's doing everything "right" in the sense that he's going after recruits that he's favored to get. If he's not maxing resources and accepting 70 percent when he could be turning that into 100 percent, then, yes, I'll say the fault is his because he accepted a risk where none was required. But if he maxed on the recruits, what's the better way? Aim lower?
Obviously he should have signed a guy who was only 90% worthless instead of 100% worthless.
These are weak arguments and don't garner a lot of sympathy. It's very easy to find and sign players throughout recruiting that you have no competition for and that would be better than the guy he got. The problem is that most people don't want to "settle" for having to take a player that doesn't meet their "criteria" of what they should have to accept. So, yes, the answer is aim lower ... the game design is basically telling you that if you don't aim lower, it will do it for you. That maybe be good or bad, that may be right or wrong, but that is how the game is now designed - one of the goals was to spread out talent and make it much more difficult to maintain a roster of elite caliber players.

If people who play the game don't want to adjust their perceptions of what is "acceptable" they will continue to be frustrated by the game and continue to come on to the message boards and whine. You can argue that it's stupid, but the game is what it is.
11/4/2017 11:28 AM
Posted by possumfiend on 11/4/2017 11:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 11/4/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rednu on 11/4/2017 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 11/4/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
The developers don’t want to incentivize resource gaming. If you don’t want the sim to try to sign players for you, make sure you get to 9.
So how does the OP "make sure to get to 9" under the current game model? Per the post above, he was at 70+ percent and lost 3 RNG's as well as a fourth of unknown percentage. He's doing everything "right" in the sense that he's going after recruits that he's favored to get. If he's not maxing resources and accepting 70 percent when he could be turning that into 100 percent, then, yes, I'll say the fault is his because he accepted a risk where none was required. But if he maxed on the recruits, what's the better way? Aim lower?
Obviously he should have signed a guy who was only 90% worthless instead of 100% worthless.
These are weak arguments and don't garner a lot of sympathy. It's very easy to find and sign players throughout recruiting that you have no competition for and that would be better than the guy he got. The problem is that most people don't want to "settle" for having to take a player that doesn't meet their "criteria" of what they should have to accept. So, yes, the answer is aim lower ... the game design is basically telling you that if you don't aim lower, it will do it for you. That maybe be good or bad, that may be right or wrong, but that is how the game is now designed - one of the goals was to spread out talent and make it much more difficult to maintain a roster of elite caliber players.

If people who play the game don't want to adjust their perceptions of what is "acceptable" they will continue to be frustrated by the game and continue to come on to the message boards and whine. You can argue that it's stupid, but the game is what it is.
Well said.

+1

11/4/2017 12:43 PM
I think a fair argument could be made that those auto-scholarship players should at least be superior to walk-ons, though. That's hardly a big ask. I mean, they don't need to be good...but come on. It might also help newer players at lower levels.
11/4/2017 2:54 PM
Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/4/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think a fair argument could be made that those auto-scholarship players should at least be superior to walk-ons, though. That's hardly a big ask. I mean, they don't need to be good...but come on. It might also help newer players at lower levels.
I agree a fair argument could be made here, and I also think a fair argument could be made that the "penalty" for not filling your roster isn't strong enough. Which is right? I suppose that depends on your perspective and what you'd like the game to be.

The bottom line is that you and I could probably both create a list of things we think could be done to improve the game. Some would be more important than others but at the end of the day we would probably both have different ideas of what is most important; what should and shouldn't be fixed; and why. Add a 1000+ other users into that equation with their ideas and the waters become even more muddied.

So it still comes down to the fact that until Sports Hub decides to pay attention to the game, these arguments are all moot, and even when they do decide to pay attention to the game, they may still be moot.

Edited to change "that" to "we think" in the second paragraph.
11/4/2017 3:31 PM (edited)
This one probably happens so rarely that its really not worth "fixing" when compared to other things.
11/4/2017 3:57 PM (edited)
The biggest gripe in this forum affects only a few. So dismissing this complaint based on "happens so rarely" is nonsense.

I'd dismiss it because everyone KNOWS you can only have three walk-ons. It's the game.
11/4/2017 4:12 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2017 4:12:00 PM (view original):
The biggest gripe in this forum affects only a few. So dismissing this complaint based on "happens so rarely" is nonsense.

I'd dismiss it because everyone KNOWS you can only have three walk-ons. It's the game.
EEs happen every season.
11/4/2017 4:24 PM
123 Next ▸
Can you stop this? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.