Posted by darnoc29099 on 4/13/2018 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Thoughts on the big board being eliminated all together? It’s only been around a couple years and seems to cause more headaches than doing good.

It could potentially eliminate some headaches but not much IMO. You could still see which other teams didn't lose absolute studs and which ones loss good but not great players. Which could potentially lead to confusion.

I think the intention is to help the user. Especially with planning for recruiting now you don't get funds until session 2. It just needs a few tweaks, nothing crazy.

Posted by mamxet on 4/13/2018 9:14:00 AM (view original):
Surprising EEs are annoying - like when they are on the fence and 90 on the big board - or likely staying

And only one rating of 90 or better, so I thought he would not interest NBA.....likely last pick in second round or perhaps he wants to play in Itay

REALLY annoying when a guy leaves early who wasnt on the big board at all - thought we were okay for next season at St Johns, but the best laid plans.....

I just looked up your guy who went EE...

No way that guy should have been a Soph EE. You got totally screwed. I wouldnt even expect that guy to get drafted at all. Wow. I've had better guards graduate and go undrafted.

That sucks man.

From a gameplay standpoint, there is no value to “eliminating headaches”, which really just means making the game easier and more predictable. The big board is a tool to help you assess. It is not an assessment.

How about moving to a Top 50 Prospects by Class? That should capture everyone who drafted, I would think?

Posted by shoe3 on 4/13/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):
From a gameplay standpoint, there is no value to “eliminating headaches”, which really just means making the game easier and more predictable. The big board is a tool to help you assess. It is not an assessment.

Yeah. Why do people want to make the game easier? You’re playing D1, there’s a chance your stud is going to leave and trying going to the pros.

16th ranked player who was likely going stayed

guy with only one 90+ who wasnt on the board goes

at least two guys off the board in Big East alone went

nothing per se bad about that, but I think EEs are painful enough with 2 step recruiting that the algorithm should rarely or never take a guy who isnt on the board

and all or virtually all lottery picks should go -

the result really craters our competitiveness in a way that we couldnt prepare for

Zags- we all agree that studs should leave early. That's the entire point that we're all making. Mamxet lost a player that was NOT a stud but another team did have a stud that came back. Neither did anything special or strategic to get this outcome - it was decided by a RNG.

Here is the player mamxet lost.

And this is the player he was saying did not leave early.

But it's not the even close to the best player I've seen come back. Check out this guy who came back for a Jr season when he was #1 on the big board.

Ath: 94
Spd: 88
Reb: 73
Def: 95
Blk: 67
LP: 76
Per: 88
BH: 95
Pass:91
St: 83

Lulz.

Posted by mamxet on 4/13/2018 9:02:00 PM (view original):
16th ranked player who was likely going stayed

guy with only one 90+ who wasnt on the board goes

at least two guys off the board in Big East alone went

nothing per se bad about that, but I think EEs are painful enough with 2 step recruiting that the algorithm should rarely or never take a guy who isnt on the board

and all or virtually all lottery picks should go -

the result really craters our competitiveness in a way that we couldnt prepare for

+1

And limit the number of ees random can generate for a team. I lost four twice on on the fence and likely staying players. One guy just said he lost 5... I mean, it's not high risk, high reward, it's bad luck that ruins competitiveness for two to three seasons.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/13/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):
From a gameplay standpoint, there is no value to “eliminating headaches”, which really just means making the game easier and more predictable. The big board is a tool to help you assess. It is not an assessment.

my take on gameplay is that one should feel that the core of one's success or failure should be about decisions one makes - in the context of a probability based game

we all know that one should plan for EEs - based on all available info - big board, ratings, rankings etc.

my gameplay opinion is that a guy like this going EE as a soph is annoying and an example of problematic gameplay because the randomized aspect is too powerful an effect

the scale isnt easy vs hard - its decisions v randomness determinants of success

Posted by fd343ny on 4/14/2018 8:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/13/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):
From a gameplay standpoint, there is no value to “eliminating headaches”, which really just means making the game easier and more predictable. The big board is a tool to help you assess. It is not an assessment.

my take on gameplay is that one should feel that the core of one's success or failure should be about decisions one makes - in the context of a probability based game

we all know that one should plan for EEs - based on all available info - big board, ratings, rankings etc.

my gameplay opinion is that a guy like this going EE as a soph is annoying and an example of problematic gameplay because the randomized aspect is too powerful an effect

the scale isnt easy vs hard - its decisions v randomness determinants of success

This is not an argument.

Posted by zorzii on 4/14/2018 8:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 4/13/2018 9:02:00 PM (view original):
16th ranked player who was likely going stayed

guy with only one 90+ who wasnt on the board goes

at least two guys off the board in Big East alone went

nothing per se bad about that, but I think EEs are painful enough with 2 step recruiting that the algorithm should rarely or never take a guy who isnt on the board

and all or virtually all lottery picks should go -

the result really craters our competitiveness in a way that we couldnt prepare for

+1

And limit the number of ees random can generate for a team. I lost four twice on on the fence and likely staying players. One guy just said he lost 5... I mean, it's not high risk, high reward, it's bad luck that ruins competitiveness for two to three seasons.

Nah. Just get rid of the extreme randomness on the ends. If you happen to recruit 5 guys who are on the fence they should have equal chance to leave just like any other player.

A little randomness is okay. A lot is bad gameplay.

Posted by Benis on 4/14/2018 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 4/14/2018 8:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 4/13/2018 9:02:00 PM (view original):
16th ranked player who was likely going stayed

guy with only one 90+ who wasnt on the board goes

at least two guys off the board in Big East alone went

nothing per se bad about that, but I think EEs are painful enough with 2 step recruiting that the algorithm should rarely or never take a guy who isnt on the board

and all or virtually all lottery picks should go -

the result really craters our competitiveness in a way that we couldnt prepare for

+1

And limit the number of ees random can generate for a team. I lost four twice on on the fence and likely staying players. One guy just said he lost 5... I mean, it's not high risk, high reward, it's bad luck that ruins competitiveness for two to three seasons.

Nah. Just get rid of the extreme randomness on the ends. If you happen to recruit 5 guys who are on the fence they should have equal chance to leave just like any other player.

A little randomness is okay. A lot is bad gameplay.

The problem is that it's tough to sign one player after losing a ee... no way you can get two-three, not enough late signees and those late that are left sign with teams way too fast

Posted by fd343ny on 4/14/2018 8:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/13/2018 4:50:00 PM (view original):
From a gameplay standpoint, there is no value to “eliminating headaches”, which really just means making the game easier and more predictable. The big board is a tool to help you assess. It is not an assessment.

my take on gameplay is that one should feel that the core of one's success or failure should be about decisions one makes - in the context of a probability based game

we all know that one should plan for EEs - based on all available info - big board, ratings, rankings etc.

my gameplay opinion is that a guy like this going EE as a soph is annoying and an example of problematic gameplay because the randomized aspect is too powerful an effect

the scale isnt easy vs hard - its decisions v randomness determinants of success

Of course success depends on decisions. Decisions include what players you go after. Decisions include how you develop the players you land. Part of the calculus should include your evaluation of whether the player may leave early. When a top 5 player by position leaves after his sophomore season, it is not “random”. It is common.

Posted by zorzii on 4/14/2018 8:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 4/13/2018 9:02:00 PM (view original):
16th ranked player who was likely going stayed

guy with only one 90+ who wasnt on the board goes

at least two guys off the board in Big East alone went

nothing per se bad about that, but I think EEs are painful enough with 2 step recruiting that the algorithm should rarely or never take a guy who isnt on the board

and all or virtually all lottery picks should go -

the result really craters our competitiveness in a way that we couldnt prepare for

+1

And limit the number of ees random can generate for a team. I lost four twice on on the fence and likely staying players. One guy just said he lost 5... I mean, it's not high risk, high reward, it's bad luck that ruins competitiveness for two to three seasons.

You limit the number of EEs by your recruiting choices. This is not too hard for you.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/14/2018 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 4/14/2018 8:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 4/13/2018 9:02:00 PM (view original):
16th ranked player who was likely going stayed

guy with only one 90+ who wasnt on the board goes

at least two guys off the board in Big East alone went

nothing per se bad about that, but I think EEs are painful enough with 2 step recruiting that the algorithm should rarely or never take a guy who isnt on the board

and all or virtually all lottery picks should go -

the result really craters our competitiveness in a way that we couldnt prepare for

+1

And limit the number of ees random can generate for a team. I lost four twice on on the fence and likely staying players. One guy just said he lost 5... I mean, it's not high risk, high reward, it's bad luck that ruins competitiveness for two to three seasons.

You limit the number of EEs by your recruiting choices. This is not too hard for you.

Shoe : My point is that decisions have less to do with winning than :

1) Luck
2) Location
3) Gamin' the ees