Posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2018 1:49:00 PM (view original):
I dismissed mully's "EE is causing the world population problem" before I finished reading his post. You should have as well.

I was addressing the big picture, a lack of revenue for the owner of the game, not nonsensical griping cloaked as a world population problem.

Why would that be part of an EE thread, then? Couldn’t you find an existing world population thread?

To your general point, though. I’m a consumer. It’s not my job to care about how big the target audience is for the maker of the product. It’s my job to decide to buy it, or not. Millions of people play Risk. Thousands of people play Washington’s War. The latter is a much, much better game, and I categorically reject any and all appeals to GMT to dumb it down and make it simpler so they can make more money.

This was the thread that was active.

No one said it was your job. And, so we're clear, it's not my job either. We were discussing the business aspects of the game. mully incorrectly implied that EE was causing population issues. You flat out stated that ideas that would increase population(users) was a poor argument. It isn't. Healthy populations will keep the game afloat. IMO, it would make the current game better.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2018 2:28:00 PM (view original):
This was the thread that was active.

No one said it was your job. And, so we're clear, it's not my job either. We were discussing the business aspects of the game. mully incorrectly implied that EE was causing population issues. You flat out stated that ideas that would increase population(users) was a poor argument. It isn't. Healthy populations will keep the game afloat. IMO, it would make the current game better.

Yeah, it is (a poor argument). It’s presumptive and speculative to argue that any given idea would increase population. There’s no reason to believe “fixing” EEs in the way mully or zorzii suggest would increase population (because there is currently no real population problem at high D1 that I’ve seen, the only problem was temporary, and was because people who wanted those jobs weren’t qualified for them yet), and it *certainly* wouldn’t make the game better.

If they want to increase population without dumbing down, I suggest they start with fixing hiring to dramatically decrease the amount of time it takes for people to get to the level they want to play. Easily the #1 impediment that doesn’t have anything to do with being “too complicated” or “too random”.

Sigh.

Is it you and benis that have the sleep-inducing "discussions"? I think it is and I'm starting to nod off now.

You're focusing on the small picture(EE effect on world population). I am not. Discussing ideas that would promote a better, more saleable product is not a "poor argument" for an idea. It is possibly the best. Said ideas might be dumber than **** but anyone with an idea that would improve the product and increase world populations isn't making a poor argument. Perhaps it's just a poor idea.

The bottom line of HD doesn't directly affect us. But, if it's not making money, it's not going to be around. That directly affects us as consumers.

Anyone posting ideas to improve the game shouldn't be discouraged from doing so. The one thing I think we can all agree on is that keeping the game as it is will not increase world populations.

But they can be dismissed. EE isn't the reason people aren't playing. EE affects a tiny portion of HD users. And no one starting from scratch thinks "So I could lose a good player while a better player stays in school? That's bullshit!!!" because that issue is real-life YEARS away for them.

No one thinks increasing populations is bad in and of itself. Literally no one has ever said that in these forums. It comes down to a question of what will be done, and what what will be lost.

Example - “fix EEs to increase population” = poor argument. For reasons you’ve already acknowledged.

On the other hand - “fix hiring to increase population” = not a poor argument. There is good reason to think that actually is an impediment to new player retention.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/16/2018 12:17:00 PM (view original):
This isn't real life. A good internet game means understanding what drives people to keep playing and what causes users to leave.

Increasing population is a poor argument in favor of making the game stupider and easier to manipulate.

Perhaps I misread this.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2018 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/16/2018 11:56:00 AM (view original):
That's not really the point. And many of you are missing the point...and the argument about EEs.

It's not that teams are losing 3 EEs a season, its that teams are losing EE's that SHOULDNT be leaving while other EEs that are higher rated stay.
This would not be as much of a problem if Seble made ANY of the changes that have been suggested to fix this problem. (ie - EEs declare during the 1st recruiting session).

Assuming he never addresses the root problem...
I think EEs should be similar to the current post season projection report. If there are 35-40 EEs a season then the 1st 35-40 players on the draft big board should go. To have the 95th player on the big board go while the 40th player stays is moronic and only increases user frustration and an inability to maintain customers.

(so glad we finally got another EE thread this month!!)

"while other EEs that are higher rated stay."

I'll assume you meant "higher ranked".

Yep thanks

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/16/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Mully’s idea makes the game less intelligent and easier to game. You should never know exactly what a kid is going to do. Good coaching means understanding the probabilities and managing contingencies.

Dumb argument. On EES, your arguments have been dumb, dumb, dumb. 5EES... That is what the guy lost... He understood the probability, he managed contingencies... But the system does not permit such adjustments in the second cycle.

Another one was in the same spot as him and lost nobody. It happens also. Where is the logic? It makes for frustration and random, not strategy to reajust roster and act accordingly as you keep implying like somebody who is dumb.

The system doesn’t want teams to be able to hoard elite commodities and maintain success in perpetuity. Elite talent is a commodity, it’s valuable, and it’s volatile. Anyone who continues to recruit only draft-worthy talent, and expects to be able to maintain success with full rosters in perpetuity, as teams were able to do previously, is banging their head against a wall. Is that dumb? Your call.

Plenty of people have found ways to play competitively, and consistently. Why haven’t you?

I am. Chevk my teams. Beside the point. Two teams, 5 ees both, one lose none, the other five. Two teams, both three ees, three likely going, one lose none, other three. At least, if prob are THAT volatile, give teams a mechanism to recuperate. Plenty of ideas came up by new or experienced owners. Apply one.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/16/2018 12:17:00 PM (view original):
This isn't real life. A good internet game means understanding what drives people to keep playing and what causes users to leave.

Increasing population is a poor argument in favor of making the game stupider and easier to manipulate.

Not that poor of an argument. Businesses like to make money. When they don't, they close up shop. Those who enjoy HD won't have HD if that happens.

It’s pretty poor. In fact, IMO it’s the dumbest point of contention on these threads since beta started, especially as regards EEs. In the worlds I play in, all the big 6 conference average 9-10 human coaches, which is right in the sweet spot. The short period of time following beta where you had lots of those conferences with 5 or fewer, because of attrition at the top, was a product of WIS’s failure to fix jobs as part of the release. They have eventually filled to what I think is probably close to optimal capacity.

In other words, there are plenty of coaches willing to deal with the EE/recruiting system as it is. People are still taking big 6 jobs. The people we’ve lost are, for the most, guys who were used to a system where they could game their way to success in perpetuity, and I’m not obligated to care about the kind of game those folks would prefer to play.

"The people we’ve lost are, for the most, guys who were used to a system where they could game their way to success in perpetuity, and I’m not obligated to care about the kind of game those folks would prefer to play."

just wow....
Amazed you think we are better off without coaches like Jeffdrayer, Waynedrayer, and worthy14sure just to name a few. These legends in Smith were leaders in DI and examples of coaches who would help their conference mates. They couldn't stand what 3.0 has become and left. If you think the game is better off without guys like this in it, then we are again 180 apart.

And BTW, (off topic) I think they already began making the game stupider a long time ago when they introduced potential.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 3:22:00 PM (view original):
No one thinks increasing populations is bad in and of itself. Literally no one has ever said that in these forums. It comes down to a question of what will be done, and what what will be lost.

Example - “fix EEs to increase population” = poor argument. For reasons you’ve already acknowledged.

On the other hand - “fix hiring to increase population” = not a poor argument. There is good reason to think that actually is an impediment to new player retention.

Your opinion.. and I think its wrong. That's my opinion and you can think I'm wrong..

I know of multiple coaches in words that have left the game because of EEs. Is it why the entire game is stale? No.
But its ONE of the many issues HD faces.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2018 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/16/2018 12:17:00 PM (view original):
This isn't real life. A good internet game means understanding what drives people to keep playing and what causes users to leave.

Increasing population is a poor argument in favor of making the game stupider and easier to manipulate.

Perhaps I misread this.

If you think that’s me saying increasing population is bad, then yes, you misread it. It’s a poor argument in favor of making the game stupider. That’s what I said, and that’s what I meant. I’m in favor of increasing population, as long as it means keeping the game intelligent and competitive. A game ordered along the lines of FarmVille would have more players and make more money, and I wouldn’t play it.

Posted by mullycj on 3/16/2018 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2018 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/16/2018 12:17:00 PM (view original):
This isn't real life. A good internet game means understanding what drives people to keep playing and what causes users to leave.

Increasing population is a poor argument in favor of making the game stupider and easier to manipulate.

Not that poor of an argument. Businesses like to make money. When they don't, they close up shop. Those who enjoy HD won't have HD if that happens.

It’s pretty poor. In fact, IMO it’s the dumbest point of contention on these threads since beta started, especially as regards EEs. In the worlds I play in, all the big 6 conference average 9-10 human coaches, which is right in the sweet spot. The short period of time following beta where you had lots of those conferences with 5 or fewer, because of attrition at the top, was a product of WIS’s failure to fix jobs as part of the release. They have eventually filled to what I think is probably close to optimal capacity.

In other words, there are plenty of coaches willing to deal with the EE/recruiting system as it is. People are still taking big 6 jobs. The people we’ve lost are, for the most, guys who were used to a system where they could game their way to success in perpetuity, and I’m not obligated to care about the kind of game those folks would prefer to play.

"The people we’ve lost are, for the most, guys who were used to a system where they could game their way to success in perpetuity, and I’m not obligated to care about the kind of game those folks would prefer to play."

just wow....
Amazed you think we are better off without coaches like Jeffdrayer, Waynedrayer, and worthy14sure just to name a few. These legends in Smith were leaders in DI and examples of coaches who would help their conference mates. They couldn't stand what 3.0 has become and left. If you think the game is better off without guys like this in it, then we are again 180 apart.

And BTW, (off topic) I think they already began making the game stupider a long time ago when they introduced potential.

I didn’t say the game is better off without any specific coach. I said I’m not obligated to care about whether they chose to keep playing or not. Attrition, especially at the top when the tree gets shaken up, is expected, and is not a compelling reason not to advance to a better, more competitive system. Some guys don’t like it when their cheese gets moved. That’s life. I hope they come back, but I’m not going to advocate for changes to cater to their interests unless I think it makes the game more intelligent and more competitive.

Posted by zorzii on 3/16/2018 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/16/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/16/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Mully’s idea makes the game less intelligent and easier to game. You should never know exactly what a kid is going to do. Good coaching means understanding the probabilities and managing contingencies.

Dumb argument. On EES, your arguments have been dumb, dumb, dumb. 5EES... That is what the guy lost... He understood the probability, he managed contingencies... But the system does not permit such adjustments in the second cycle.

Another one was in the same spot as him and lost nobody. It happens also. Where is the logic? It makes for frustration and random, not strategy to reajust roster and act accordingly as you keep implying like somebody who is dumb.

The system doesn’t want teams to be able to hoard elite commodities and maintain success in perpetuity. Elite talent is a commodity, it’s valuable, and it’s volatile. Anyone who continues to recruit only draft-worthy talent, and expects to be able to maintain success with full rosters in perpetuity, as teams were able to do previously, is banging their head against a wall. Is that dumb? Your call.

Plenty of people have found ways to play competitively, and consistently. Why haven’t you?

I am. Chevk my teams. Beside the point. Two teams, 5 ees both, one lose none, the other five. Two teams, both three ees, three likely going, one lose none, other three. At least, if prob are THAT volatile, give teams a mechanism to recuperate. Plenty of ideas came up by new or experienced owners. Apply one.

I don’t care about your teams, zorzii. I care about you continuing to bleat about the same ridiculous issues over and over again. The issue is not that the system is unfair, or random. The issue is that people like you want reward without dealing with risk. You’re not going to get it. The game developers made a conscious decision to remove that feature of the game. The idea that matters is for you to change your gameplay, if the volatility bothers you. Losing 5 EEs is a direct result of recruiting only among the pool of players who are likely to be EE candidates.

EE talent costs more now, and is riskier to rely on. Adapt, or go away.